Madras High Court held that order of assessment based on issuance of general notices calling for particulars is liable to be set aside.
Madras High Court held that exemption from payment of tax leviable under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 is allowable on cars purchased by visually handicapped persons.
Examine the Calcutta High Courts ruling in Usha Martin Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, highlighting how the court adjudicated on matters related to delayed appeals, e-Way Bill expiration, and tax levies.
The Union of India challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order on upgrading the pay scale of Income Tax Officers. The Calcutta High Court ordered the formation of a Special Anomaly Committee to resolve the issue.
Comprehensive analysis of the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling in favor of Jindal Drugs Ltd., discussing the precedent-setting case related to the advance authorization scheme and customs duties.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the department is liable to make payment of interest after the expiry of three months from the date the refund of pre-deposit amount becomes due.
Read the full text of the judgment/order of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Singhi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Enforcement. The court clarifies the power of officers under Section 67(4) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act regarding sealing or breaking premises. Get detailed analysis and conclusion.This article provides an overview of the judgment/order issued by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Singhi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. versus Additional Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Enforcement. The court clarifies the power of officers under Section 67(4) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act regarding the sealing or breaking of premises. The analysis delves into the arguments presented by the petitioner and the response from the learned counsel for the Revenue. Finally, the conclusion highlights the court’s decision and subsequent actions. Analysis: The petitioner, Singhi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., challenges the order issued by the respondent No.3 under Section 67(4) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner, a private limited company, claims to be a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act. The case revolves around the sealing of the petitioner’s premises by the respondent officers during a search operation. The petitioner argues that the sealing was done without legal authority. The petitioner’s counsel contends that the authorization order for the search was issued solely based on suspicion and does not grant the authority to seal the premises. Additionally, it is argued that Section 67(4) of the Act does not empower the respondent No.3 to seal the business premises since access was not denied by the petitioner. On the other hand, the Revenue’s counsel presents the original file, which contains an authorization issued by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [Enforcement], South Zone, Bangalore. The authorization grants the officer, Sri J.J. Prakash, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the power to conduct inspection, search, and seizure of the premises in question. The court acknowledges the validity of this authorization, thus refuting the petitioner’s argument. The court refers to Section 67(4) of the Act, which empowers the authorized officer to seal or break open premises and receptacles suspected of containing goods, accounts, registers, or documents. The Revenue asserts that denial of access to the computer system and the disruption of the tally software and internet connection led to the invocation of Section 67(4) and subsequent sealing of the premises. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate, representing the respondent No.3, assures the court that the petitioner’s premises will be unsealed in the petitioner’s presence on a mutually convenient date, provided the petitioner cooperates with the inspection and search of the computer system and other records. Conclusion: After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the court orders the Revenue to unseal the premises in question on a revised date of 08.02.2019, at 11:00 a.m. The petitioner is expected to cooperate with the inspection and search of the premises, including the computer system. This judgment clarifies the power of officers under Section 67(4) of the GST Act and emphasizes the importance of lawful procedures in conducting searches and sealing premises.
Bombay High Court held that issuance of notice and all consequential proceedings in the name of a deceased assessee are null and void. Accordingly, order passed thereon is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Calcutta High Court allows writ petition in the case of L.G. Balakrishnan & Bros Limited Vs ACIT, setting aside an earlier rejection of appeal due to a delay of 148 days. The court sets a cost of Rs. 40,000/- to be paid to WBGST Authority.
In Sri Gopal Store vs AO case, Orissa High Court ruled that a minimum of seven days must be provided for compliance with a show cause notice in faceless assessment proceedings
