Where the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act had already commenced and during the pendency, the company gets dissolved, the directors and the other accused cannot escape by citing its dissolution. What is dissolved is only the company, not the personal penal liability of the accused covered under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Since Central Excise Department had not sanctioned any refund / rebate of the duty paid on the supplies to the EOUs by assessee-company and the refund of TED was sanctioned by the DGFT thus, if DGFT had acted under the different provisions and the refund was sanctioned under those provisions, the proper authority was DGFT who could initiate proceedings against the assessee-company for violation of exemption notification and the Advance Authorization Licence not the Central Excise Department.
Arya Traders Vs. State of Gujarat (Gujarat high court) The present writ petition is filed mainly for seeking release against the goods and vehicle without demanding any security. High Court states that, the goods and the conveyance came to be detained and seized way back on 9th July, 2019. Till this date, the goods and […]
AK Overseas Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Allahabad High Court) The Petitioner has filed the writ petition to release the seized goods which are seized under Rule 140 of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017. High Court states that, in case the petitioner fulfills the requirement of Rule 140 together with its explanation, […]
High Court states that if the petitioner fulfills the requirement of Rule 140 together with its explanation, Authorised GST officer will release his vehicle along with the goods within period of one week.
It has also been held that the appellant has deliberately created an artificial and colourable devise for reducing its income offered for taxation through an arrangement of letter of credit and thus, the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of interest paid to the bank and also to its creditors are not allowable.
Kuthannur Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs. ITO (Kerala High Court) The grievance of the appellants is that, though the orders passed by the Tribunal are in their favour, the Tribunal has not considered the effect of Circular No. 133/6 of 2007 dated 09.05.2007 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. In this circular, it […]
On the second issue in the petition, it was stated that in the absence of any finding about petitioners mala fide intention, connivance or wrongful association with the suppliers, no liability can be imposed on it on the principle of vicarious liability on account of fraudulent conduct of the suppliers, who have obtained registration on the basis of fictitious documents.
Commissioner ought not to have delegated his powers of provisional attachment of the immovable property under Section 83 to the Assistant Commissioner, therefore, the order of provisional attachment passed by the Assistant Commissioner was hereby quashed and set aside.
Even if the purchases made from the parties in question are to be treated as bogus, it does not necessarily mean that entire amount should be disallowed and that no benefit should be given to the Respondent-Assessee.
