Gujarat High Court held that coercive recovery during the course of search without following instruction no. 01/2022-23 dated 25th May 2022 issued by the Board is bad in law and liable to be refunded back with interest.
HC affirmed order of detention of goods and imposition of tax and penalty, on grounds that assessee was transporting huge quantity of goods without e-way bill by reducing value of goods below threshold limit.
Gujarat High Court held that the debts due to Bank – a secured creditor shall be paid in priority over other debts-taxes payable to the State Government.
Madras High Court held that as the petitioner proved that amount payable under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 (SVLDRS) as per form SVLDRS-3 was paid on the due date, however, the amount was credit on the next day i.e. one pay after the due date. The application submitted by the petitioner under SVLDRS should be processed.
Madras High Court held that there is difference of more than 1 ½ year between the date of the assessment order and date of dispatch of the assessment order. Further, order was passed without granting of personal hearing. Such impugned order is liable to be quashed.
Bombay High Court held that failure on the part of the assessee is a prerequisite for invoking jurisdiction for reopening of assessment. In absence of the same, reopening of assessment is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Gujarat High Court held that personal hearing was granted during the time of complete lockdown. Accordingly, non-granting of effective hearing is gross violation of natural justice and hence impugned order is liable to be quashed.
Madras High Court held that impugned order was passed after granting of personal hearing, however, personal hearing was granted before replies were received from the assessee is liable to be quashed on the grounds of principles of natural justice.
Madras High Court held that it is seen from the impugned assessment order that no personal hearing has been afforded to the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order is quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
HC permitted assessee to rectify error of mentioning B2C instead of B2B in Form GSTR-1 at the time of filing of returns, holding that assessee would be prejudiced if it is not allowed to avail benefits of ITC
