Thus, we direct the respondent to either open the online portal so as to enable the petitioner to file the rectified TRAN-I Form electronically, or to accept the same manually with correction, on or before 20.09.2019.
MEIS benefit available even if concerned box not checked in shipping bill: In a case where the exporter did not check the concerned box in the shipping bill to read ‘Yes’ against the query with regard to intention to claim MEIS benefit, but in the column meant for description had clearly indicated his intention to avail the benefit of the said export promotion scheme, Kerala High Court has directed the department to consider claim for benefit under MEIS.
Uninav Developers Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India And Ors (Delhi High Court) It was held that the entire GST system is still in a trial and error phase and it will be too much of a burden to place on the assessees to expect them to comply with the requirement of law where they […]
Smeara Enterprises Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) In case of detention of goods, where the assessee had paid 10% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, the recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed. We find force in the above said contention. Subsection (7) of S.107 provides […]
M/s. Precot Meridian Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) It is held that circulars cannot prevail over the statute. Circulars are issued only to clarify the statutory provision and it cannot alter or prevail over the statutory provision. In that circumstance, it is clear that the explanation of provisions of drawback has nothing […]
As to the addition made of Rs.37,30,710/-, which is lesser cash in hand as compared with the books of accounts in which the assess has shown more cash in hand, the Tribunal held that it is neither a case under Section 68 of the IT Act nor Section 69-A of the Income Tax Act.
In so far as the second substantial question of law is concerned, it is necessary to note that the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the ITAT have concurrently held that notwithstanding the nomenclature of the settlement, or the fact that the settlement is incorporated in the Consent Decree, the same is not a family settlement as such, the principle in Sachin Ambulkar (supra) is inapplicable.
Relcon Foundations (P) Ltd. Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) A perusal of Ext.P1 order would indicate that the detention of the vehicle carrying the goods was on the ground that the GSTR 3B returns had not been filed from June 2018 and GSTR I had not been filed from March 2019. It […]
As per Section 129 of GST Act, the detention notice has been passed on the ground that the validity period of the e-way bill that accompanied the transportation had already expired at the time of detention.
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. Colour Roof (India) Ltd. (Bombay High Court) The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner v/ s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., [2018] 404 ITR 1 has held that sine-qua-non for application of Section 41(1) of the Act, is that there should have been allowance or deduction claimed by the Assessee in […]
