Strangely, the authorities still insist that the payment should be by physical means: either in cash or through Demand Draft (DD). That insistence seems to be archaic and out of tune with the very spirit of the GST regime
Jurisdiction to commence proceedings against the director of a delinquent company for recovery of tax dues of delinquent company would require the notice to director/former directors, itself indicating what steps had been taken to recover the dues from delinquent company and failure thereof.
National Building Construction Company Limited Vs Union Of India & Ors. (High Court Delhi) Delhi High Court held as under: (i) Central Excise Officers of DGCEI have all India jurisdiction and can issue notices and enquire into the matters relating to service-tax against any assessee/ person even if the said person or assessee is registered […]
Chandra Kishor Singh Vs. Director, Construction And Design Services U P Jal Nigam (Allahabad High Court) The petitioner is a contractor who has been granted a contract for construction of 100 Boys’ Hostel GIC, Pratapgarh by the Construction and Design Services U.P. Jal Nigam, respondent no.4. The parties have entered into an agreement for the […]
State Bank Of India Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) It is submitted that in this case, the Assessing Officer while passing the regular assessment orders had overlooked and/or ignored this particular claim. It is submitted that it is not a case of change of opinion as neither the assessment order referred to allowing of this […]
Imposition of interest is justified under sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, save and except on the income which arises from retrospective operation of any statute, decision etc.
Saji S. Vs. Commissioner, State GST Department (Kerala High Court at Ernakulam) The petitioner, who is the consignee and transporter, insists that the consignor paid the tax and penalty under that only based on the ASTO’s directions. But the fact remains that the remittance must have been under the head ‘IGST’. So the authorities have […]
Proper officer was directed to duly complete the pending adjudication provided under section 129 of Kerala GST Act, 2017 and was also directed that if assessee had complied with rule 140(1) of the Kerala GST Rules, 2017, the goods detained shall be released to it.
Hitech Outsourcing Services Vs CIT (Gujarat High Court) We have noticed that the Assessing Officer in teh original assessment proceedings had examined the assessee’s claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act. It is not as if such claim went unnoticed or unscrutinized. He wanted to be specific about the assessee’s claim for deduction […]
CIT Vs Society for Indian Automobile Manufactures (Delhi High Court) Ministry had sanctioned Rs.1,474.10 lacs ( including cost of land) for setting up Model Inspection & Certification Centres. The respondent/assessee was to execute this project for and on behalf of the Ministry. The amount received was in form of a financial sanction and not a […]
