Shree Siddhi Foods Vs ACIT (Gujarat High Court) In this case request of adjournment for seven days was not acceded to by explicit order. Thereafter, when the order was passed under Section 148A(d) on 31.3.2022, he was oblivious of the reply which was tendered by the petitioner-assessee. This practice of not responding to the request […]
Mahajan Fabrics Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner CGST And Ors (Delhi High Court) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in M/s. Mahajan Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST and Ors. [W.P. (C) 6727/2022 dated February 6, 2023] has set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority, disallowing the refund claimed by the assessee. Held that, the […]
Petitioner should approach Commissioner, State Taxes with a request for extension of time limit for submission of Form GST ITC-01, which may be considered in accordance with law.
Petitioner was surprised that jurisdiction had been shifted from Bhubaneswar to Balasore and he accordingly filed an objection on 10th March, 2016.
Petitioner prayed for a direction to respondent to accept repayment of motor vehicle tax arrears demanded for the vehicle in instalments.
Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Vs Varun Beverages Ltd. (Allahabad High Court) The short controversy before this Court is that as to whether pat pre-form of plastic bottles which are supplied by the assessee who is manufacturer to various dealers is liable to be taxed @ 4% as mentioned in Schedule-II Part C Entry No.174 of […]
Mehrul Industries (India) Vs Union Of India (Rajasthan High Court) Central Excise Act and the rules framed thereunder, do not contemplate extension of time beyond the period of limitation for entertaining applications for refund of duty and interest rebate claims, which have to be submitted within a period of one year as stipulated under Section […]
Gujarat High court held that the dues in the nature of sales tax or VAT payable by the original owner cannot claim priority over the dues of the secured creditor.
It has been admitted that income of Rs.4,57,18,304/- and tax determined thereupon at Rs.87,48,804/-was due to a system error which was in process of being rectified. It is also stated that the Faceless Assessing Officer in fact has assessed income at Rs.1,920/-
Calcutta High Court held that the appellate authority could not have taken a decision on an issue, which did not emanate from the order passed by the original authority.
