Follow Us:

All High Courts

Permit petitioner to file TRAN-1 Forms either electronically or manually: HC

December 20, 2019 873 Views 0 comment Print

Kalpaka Distrbutors Pvt Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court) On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that since it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein did attempt to upload the necessary details in the system maintained by the respondents, […]

NSEL Transaction: Reopening of assessment not permissible for Mere verification or for fishing inquiry

December 20, 2019 2574 Views 0 comment Print

 Re-assessment even if in case where return was not scrutinized before the income chargeable to tax had escaped before acceptance originally could not be made unless AO has reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped, therefore, for mere verification or for fishing inquiry, reopening of assessment was not permissible.

Exercise Power to attached bank A/c only to protect interest of revenue

December 20, 2019 7947 Views 0 comment Print

Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Punjab & Haryana High Court) In the given case the petitioner is manufacturing lead ingots, red oxide and grey oxide. On 27.03.2018, officials of Respondent/GST Directorate searched premises of the Petitioner and during search seized record. The Respondent time to time directed […]

Mere Negligence without ill motive / mala fide intent is not Misconduct

December 20, 2019 11646 Views 0 comment Print

In our view, these circumstance, if considered in conjunction with total absence of ill motive, mala fide intent or animus to cause wrongful gain to the importers and the petitioner, lead to a legitimate inference that the act on the part of the petitioner was the result of negligence and carelessness. It falls short of misconduct.

Liability to pay demurrage is on importer, irrespective of reason for seizure /detention of goods

December 20, 2019 14913 Views 0 comment Print

Global Impex Vs Manager, Celebi Import Shed And Anr. (Delhi High Court) (i) The custodian has a lien over the imported goods, consigned to its custody. This lien may be statutory, as provided under the IAA Act, all the Major Port Trusts Acts, or contractual. It may also be relatable to Sections 170 and 171 […]

GST: Liability of interest U/s. 50 is automatic but quantification needs arithmetic exercise

December 19, 2019 22446 Views 1 comment Print

Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Vs Daejung Moparts Pvt Ltd. (Madras High Court) View of Third Member The question raised is as to whether interest on delayed payment of tax as contemplated under Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is automatic or the same is to be determined, […]

CPC-Constructive notice, not sufficient-‘Willful disobedience’ to be proved beyond doubt

December 18, 2019 6507 Views 0 comment Print

Makkhan Singh Vs Shyam Singh And 3 Others (Allahabad High Court) CPC-Constructive notice, held not sufficient-‘Willful disobedience’ to be proved beyond doubt-Court not to proceed on surmises or inferences As regards the contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioners with regard to presumption of service of notice in a case of a notice sent by […]

Financial stringency not justify non-remittance of TDS – Penalty Justified

December 18, 2019 1221 Views 0 comment Print

Financial stringency would not justify the non-remittance of TDS to the Government, in as much as, it would amount to utilization of money payable to the appropriate government. As such, by extending its benevolence.

Section 43B: PF & employees state insurance payment within Grace Period Allowable

December 18, 2019 17262 Views 0 comment Print

Whether the payment of provident fund and employees state insurance (ESI) dues deposited by the Assessee within the grace period would qualify for deduction under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

AO cannot Reject the Claim for being raised for First Time

December 18, 2019 1311 Views 0 comment Print

Assessing Officer ought to have evaluated the claim made by the assessee for write-off of liability by Canara Bank in its favour amounting to Rs. 1,36,45,525/-, and should not have rejected the same merely on the ground of it being raised for the first time.

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031