Customs Department could not have relied upon Circular No. 35/2017-Customs dated 16 August 2017 to outrightly deny assessee’s request for provisional release, particularly when such reliance had been held to be contrary to the statutory provisions under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore void. Hence, ordered for provision release of the the imported multi-functional printer and photocopier Machine on deposit of 50% of the applicable duty.
Where show-cause notice (SCN) that initiated the proceeding did not specifically state or propose that the cancellation would be from a an earlier, retrospective date, the cancellation of the registration should be considered effective only from the date of the show-cause notice.
Quasi-judicial authorities were obliged to render reasoned and speaking orders, and that reasons should have been assigned by the adjudicating authority to the extent whether the circulars adduced by assessee were applicable to their case or not. Accordingly, the High Court held that the orders of both the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority were unsustainable, proceeding to quash the impugned orders while remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority.
MP High Court rules an Advance Ruling (AAR) against one GSTIN holder cannot bind an independent business, even under the same brand, citing Section 103 of the CGST Act.
The Gujarat High Court has issued notice to the Union of India, demanding an explanation for not extending the Income Tax Return (ITR) filing due date under Section after extending the Tax Audit Report deadline under Section to October . The court relied on its previous ruling in the All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants case, which established that the two dates are inextricably linked and must be the same.
Construction was funded through borrowed money, and assessee sought to utilize the account funds to repay the debt. However, Department denied the request to close the account and release funds citing incomplete construction, use of borrowed funds, non-filing of returns for the relevant assessment years, and non-compliance with Section 54F conditions.
The final order passed by the tax authority, however, cancelled assessee’s registration with retrospective effect. Assessee’s main argument was that this action was illegal because the SCN never mentioned or proposed a retrospective cancellation; it only proposed a simple cancellation.
Madras HC rules consolidated GST SCN/order covering multiple financial years is impermissible, violating the statutory limitation framework. Orders quashed; new proceedings allowed.
Delhi High Court held that addition of demonetization cash deposit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit rightly deleted by CIT(A) since source of deposit duly explained with documentary evidence. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
High Court held that the Revenue itself had accepted the provision in earlier years and not disputed it even before the jurisdictional High Court in appeal for AY 2009-10. Since the provision was scientific and actually discharged, no substantial question of law arose.
