Madras High Court held that as per provisions of section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017 granting of personal hearing is mandatory where an adverse decision is taken by the AO against the assessee. Non-granting of the same is against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, order liable to be quashed.
Vihaan Networks Limited Vs The State of Bihar (Patna High Court) The present writ application has been filed seeking quashing of a notice bearing Process No. 336 dated 25.01.2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Special Circle, Patna, asking the petitioner to deposit outstanding amount of Rs. 97,24,149/- against the State Goods and […]
Delhi High Court held that reasons provided for withdrawal of export shipments vis-à-vis letter requesting permission for withdrawal of shipments doesn’t co-relate. Further, letter for withdrawal of impugned shipments not produced before adjudicating authority. letter for withdrawal of impugned shipments rejected.
Delhi High Court held that for exercise jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, twin conditions i.e. order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue needs to be satisfied. PCIT order not satisfying the same needs to be quashed.
Madras High Court held that impugned assessment order passed without granting time despite of specific request from the petitioner is liable to be quashed and remanded back as against the principles of natural justice.
Uttarakhand High Court directed petitioner to file an application for revocation under Section 30 of the GST Act in terms of Rule 23 of the GST Rules despite being time-barred post payment of all the pending dues.
Madras High Court held that as the personal hearing has not been afforded, it is clear that principles of natural justice has been violated by the respondent. Hence, the impugned assessment orders is quashed and the matters will have to be remanded back for fresh consideration.
Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition as being prematured. It is directed to dispose the objections raised by petitioner by the concerned authority.
Madras High Court held that as an appeal is already filed which is still pending and statutory pre-deposit amount paid by the petitioner, VAT authorities cannot recover further sum from petitioner’s bank account or from any other source till statutory appeal is disposed of on merits.
Orissa High Court held that while exercising suo motu revisional power u/s. 263 of the Act, the CIT cannot travel beyond the scope of the issues which form part of the ‘limited scrutiny’ in the original Assessment Order.