Assessment was sought to be reopened not on account of failure of assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts that were necessary for computation of income but on account of change of opinion of AO about the manner of computation of the deduction under Section 57, therefore, the same was invalid.
Since none of the other relevant material, which was the basis of the seizure under Section 17(1A) and the complaint under Section 17(4) of the PMLA were supplied to assessee, as the same were not even supplied by the ED to the AA. Thus, ED should forward a copy of the documents to the Adjudicating Authority immediately after a freezing order under PML Rule.
With respect to seized goods, there was neither any notice under clause (a) of Section 124 issued to assessee within six months of the seizure nor had the period of six months been extended for a further period of six months, therefore, in the absence of there being any notice as required by the first proviso even within the extended period upto one year, the consequence that ought to follow was release of the seized consignments.
Govind Vs State of Haryana (Punjab & Haryana High Court) Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that on 06.01.2019, the police registered a written complaint from Excise and Taxation Officer, Panipat. The complaint mentioned that a Firm got registered under HGST Act on the basis of fake and forged documents and thus received the […]
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Vs Invesco Developing Markets Fund (Bombay High Court) Facts- Two institutional investors issued the requisition notice to Zee Entertainment. A suit is filed by Zee Entertainment against the demand of two institutional investors seeking extraordinary general meeting. Zee Entertainment has filed a suit arguing that the requisition notice send by the […]
CBIC was not empowered to issue circular in respect of fish meal used for making cattle / poultry / aquatic feed for clarification on GST rate as the power was to be exercised either by the Parliament by making a law as had been done in Finance Act, 2020 or by the Central Government by exercising their powers either under Section 11(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 or under Section 6(1) of the IGST Act, 2017.
Umkal Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre & Anr. (Delhi High Court) Since in the present case no hearing had been granted before passing the impugned assessment order, there is a violation of principles of natural justice as well as mandatory procedure prescribed in ‘Faceless Assessment Scheme’ and stipulated in Section 144B of […]
Mohammed Shafi P. Vs National Investigation Agency (Kerala High Court) Facts- The allegations against the accused are of smuggling gold through the diplomatic channel availing the intimate connection, A1 and A2 had with the Consulate of United Arab Emirates at Thiruvananthapuram; wherein the two accused were formerly employed. The appellants lament; as the lyrics in […]
o declare that the non-inclusion of petrol and diesel under the GST regime are violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P2 representation.
Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors. (Bombay High Court) SCN quashed by Bombay HC for allegedly availing inadmissible transitional credit as has been issued on an erroneous legal premise The Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in the matter of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Union of […]
