Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Kamla Town Trust reported in (1996) 84 Taxman 248 (SC) held that the rectification shall not have retrospective effect and would operate prospectively from the date when the rectification saw the light of the day.
Jsk Marketing Limited & Anr Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court) A conjoint reading of Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 70 & 174 of the CGST Act show that though the Central Excise Act and the Finance Act, 1994 to […]
Dilip Babulal Jain Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) 1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with Case No.CBIC-DIN-20200665VB00002SBJ10 registered under Sections 132(1)(a)(b)(c)(d) of the CGST Act. 2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the […]
Proposal to levy penalty on the ground that assessee- dealer purchased SAP software at concessional rate of tax against C Form Declarations without having included the same in the registration certificate issued under the CST Act was made by an officer, who was not the officer, who passed the order dated 30.1.2014, as there had been a transfer of the officer and the new officer took over charge thus, the defect, which had occurred by levying penalty without affording an opportunity of personal hearing would go to the root of the very levy itself, therefore, the assessment orders was remanded to AO for a fresh consideration.
We would not have asked the officers to join the video conference but for the serious allegations which have been levelled in the respective writ applications. We do not intend to discourage or lower down the morale of all the officers before us. Our endeavour is only to bring it to their notice that they should act and perform their duties within the four corners of law.
Muhammed Shafi P. Vs NIA (Kerala High Court) Undisputed facts are as follows:NIA registered the above mentioned case alleging offences punishable under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UA(P) Act”, in short). Accused persons were arrested by NIA on different dates and they have been confined to custody for […]
Loyalty Solutions And Research Private Limited Vs Union Of India And Others (Punjab & Haryana High Court) The Designated Committee constituted under Amnesty Scheme vide impugned order dated 24.02.2020 (P-19) rejected declaration filed with respect to appeal pending before Tribunal on the ground that petitioner has filed single declaration with respect to four show cause […]
CIT Vs Y. V. Subramaniam (Madras High Court) On a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that the Tribunal has categorically held that the order passed by CIT is based on no reason and he has simply given an abrupt finding that the assessment order is erroneous. Further, the Tribunal, […]
We may mention that demat accounts of the petitioners have been frozen for non-payment of annual listing fee which has been quantified at Rs.14,16,000/- for the period from 2015-16 to 2019-20. Against the freezing of demat accounts, petitioners preferred appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal.
Sabareesh Pallikere Vs Jurisdictional Designated Committee (Bombay High Court) In so far the present case is concerned, we may refer to the first statement of the petitioner recorded on 06.07.2018. In this statement, he categorically admitted that the total service tax liability of the petitioner for the period 2013-14 to 2017-18 (upto June, 2017) would […]
