Delhi High Court held that whether condition 104 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 is complied or not is required to be considered by the Customs Authorities and Customs Authorities are not bounded by the decision of DGCA.
Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and directed acceptance of personal bond instead of bank guarantee, as condition for stay of assessment order, pending disposal of appeal in VAT demand matter.
Bombay High Court held that being in retail business of electronic appliances, cash deposits from various places cannot be doubted be considered suspicious transactions. Accordingly, cash deposits in crores cannot lead to a belief that the income has escaped assessment. Re-opening unjustified.
Bombay High Court held that re-assessment proceedings, in absence of any failure to disclose any material fact and without any new tangible material which was not available at the time of passing of the original assessment order, is unsustainable.
Ayann Traders Vs State of U.P. And 3 Others (Allahabad high court) It is a case where taxing authorities, after intercepting the goods of the petitioner on 18.04.2018, had detained the same and issued notice to both the selling and purchasing dealer. When no reply was filed, a seizure order was passed imposing 100% penalty, […]
SPS Steels Rolling Mills Limited and Ors. Vs Asansol Durgapur Development Authority and Anr. (Calcutta High Court) Learned Single Judge by the impugned order has reached to the conclusion that the transfer fee was exempted under the resolution plan sanctioned by the National Company Law Tribunal and has found that the demand of the respondent […]
Madras High Court held that Government Order No. 339/Public (Law Officers) fixing fees for the law officers is extremely irrational. Government Orders determining a ceiling as fees for a professional cannot be accepted by any court of law.
Bombay High Court held that initiation of reassessment proceedings invalid as there was no failure on the part of the assesse to disclose any material facts.
Madras High Court held that finalization of assessment without granting of personal hearing is against the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed.
While GST Department may reverse credit in the hands of purchaser, this has to be a protective move, to be reversed and credit restored if liability is made good by supplier. Thus, substantive liability falls on supplier and protective liability upon purchaser.
