Orissa High Court held that the essential component of Section 43(2) of the OVAT Act for attracting the penalty, viz., the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that the escapement of tax was without reasonable cause, is absent in the present case. Accordingly, imposition of penalty unjustified.
Orissa High Court held that there is mis-match of Rs. 5,18,230/- as against the reflected figure in RFD-01 at Rs. 2,22,97,228/-. Accordingly, court directed to refund the balance amount as only Rs. 5,18,230/- needs proper adjudication.
In view of non-availability of GST appellate forum against impugned order of appellate authority, writ petition is entertained by HC
SCN was issued on 27.03.2023 at 9.10.33 p.m. and petitioner was given 13 hours time to reply, which violates principles of natural justice
Petitioner is prevented from availing benefit of stay of recovery of balance amount of tax in terms of Section 112 (8) and (9) of B.G.S.T Act upon deposit of amounts as contemplated under Section 112(8).
Sheetala Credit & Holdings Private Limited Vs ITO (Madras High Court) High Court held that assessing authority has rightly concluded that there is no capital gains that arises from the transaction since the entire transaction was a buyout of shares by virtue of order of the Apex Court. The officer, in this regard refers to the […]
Section 148A(b) Notice is not expected to be as detailed as assessment order and it would suffice that reassessment reasons broadly outlined
Petitioner is admittedly a non-filer and also accedes to the position that two PAN numbers were obtained, which has lead to present confusion.
Calcutta High Court decision on Anmol Industries vs WB AAR case. Challenge to AAR rejection of GST exemption ruling application. Appellate authority option discussed.
Bombay High court held that SVLDR scheme is a dispute resolution scheme. The substantive benefit under the scheme cannot be denied for technical reasons.
