Held that the refund towards the IGST paid in respect of the goods exported i.e. zero rated supplies, vide the shipping bills ought to have been completed as the two circumstances provided in sub clauses (a) & (b) of Clause (4) of Rule 96 of Rules, 2017 do not exist. The shipping bills, as per Rule 96, exporter once file are deemed to be an application for refund of Integrated tax paid on the exports of goods and withholding of the same is made permissible under Rule 96 (4) when read with Section 54 as specified in the decision of Amit Cotton Industries.
LGW Industries Limited & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) 1. If all the purchases and transactions in question are genuine and supported by valid documents and transactions in question were made before the cancellation of registration of those suppliers and after taking into consideration the judgments of the Supreme Court […]
Gandhi Realty (India) Private limited Vs Assistant/Joint/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Gujarat High Court) Sub-section (2) of section 144(B) says that every notice or order or any other electronic communication shall be delivered to the addressee, being the assessee, by way of placing an authenticated copy thereof in the assessee’s registered account; or by sending […]
Mon Mohan Kohli Vs ACIT & Anr. (Delhi High Court) This Court is of the view that as the Legislature has introduced the new provisions, Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by way of the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 1st April, 2021 and as the said Section 147 is […]
Sun Tower Residents Welfare Association Vs Ghaziabad Development Authority (Allahabad High Court) In reference to the Writ petition no 59863 of 2015, (Petitioner: Sun Tower Residents Welfare Association and Respondent: Ghaziabad Development Authority, Uttar Pradesh, Saya Gold Avenue and Ors) the petitioner had alleged the respondents for not legally conducting the construction of the Indirapuram’s […]
Learned counsel has submitted that as per the prosecution, the total liability of the petitioner turns out to be Rs.2.5 crores and the petitioner has volunteered to deposit half of the amount within ten days subject to final adjustment.
Petitioner submits that the impugned notifications are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as they fail to satisfy the test of reasonable classification. He states that no differentiation in tax treatment can be created between passenger transport services rendered by auto drivers facilitated through e-commerce platforms versus passenger transport services rendered by auto drivers offline.
Respondent is directed to release the vehicle subject to payment of the applicable SGST and CGST by the petitioner to be treated as deposit. The respondent shall issue appropriate notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why SGST and CGST directed to be deposited should be demanded and why penalty should not be imposed on the petitioner.
Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Petitioner had in its annual report mentioned about the technical know how fee, royalty and technical assistance fee that it had paid to Skoda Auto a.s. and Volks Wagen AG. Petitioner had also filed Form 3CEB in which it had disclosed about details and […]
Rajeev Mishra Vs State of Odisha And Another (Orissa High Court) Conclusion: Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, availability of prima facie case against assessee, coupled with the fact that a huge amount of public money had been misappropriated by availing and passing of bogus ITC, assessee was […]
