The issue under consideration is that, when two views are possible and A.O. adopt one of the view and passed his order accordingly. But that view is not acceptable by PCIT, in such case can PCIT adopt its one of the other views and call the order of A.O. the erroneous?
This Court does not find any substance in the arguments of the petitioner, when they say that the investigation and the proceedings now initiated is one, which hit by Section 6(2)(1)(b) of the CGST Act of 2017. What has also to be appreciated is the fact that there is a clear distinction between a proceeding drawn for the demand of tax evaded by the petitioner-establishment and the investigation be conducted by the Department of the DG, GST Intelligence Wings in respect of an offence committed by an establishment by way of using bogus and fake invoices and illegally availing ITCs, which the petitioner-establishment otherwise was ineligible.
It appears that petitioner Satnarain had rendered his professional services and assistance for the purpose of incorporation of the firms. At this stage, it cannot be said that he had joined hands with Rajesh Mittal or was beneficiary of any amount other than his professinal fee.
Lakhan Singh Chauhan and Company Vs Union of India and others (Madhya Pradesh HC) In the impugned order, there is no consideration to the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal regarding non-communication of the order to the petitioner and start of period of limitation from the date of communication or knowledge of the order. […]
Rajesh and another Vs State of Haryana (Punjab and Haryana High Court) The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of ASI Vinod Kumar wherein it has been alleged that on 4.6.2019 when he along with other police officials was present near grain market bridge for the purpose of patrolling, then a secret information […]
In the instant case, the allegations are in respect of getting bogus firms registered under the GST Code and of preparing bogus invoices for the purpose of evading tax.
The subject matter of challenge in the instant writ proceeding is challenging the seizure as well as praying for release of the seized goods. A counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State reveals, inter alia, as follows :-
It has come on record that the applicant’s firm was found indulging in running business from bogus address and a huge transaction is shown to have been done without there is any such big transaction reflected from the account of the firm.
The petitioner, engaged in the export of leather shoes, had filed a shipping bill claiming duty drawback. The export transaction, the petitioner states, was also entitled for benefit under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) notified under the Foreign Trade Policy.
Fees for late filing of income tax returns under section 234F was a fixed charge not a penalty for the extra service which the Department had to provide due to the late filing of the Income Tax return.
