Bombay High Court held that once SVLDRS-2 issued and follow up action taken by the department, authorities cannot renege on the same when rejection of SVLDRS-1 not communicated to the applicant.
Madras High Court held that petitioner duly provided detailed reasons as to why they were unable to file the duty drawback claim within the prescribed time, whereas, impugned order was passed without stating reasons for rejecting the claim. Such impugned order being a cryptic and non-speaking is liable to be quashed.
Kamal Nath Vs PCIT (Calcutta High Court) Whether an order for transfer of a case from one city to another is an administrative order or a quasi judicial order and also whether reasons are required to be recorded for passing such an order In this high voltage case related to Ex-Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh […]
HC held that, State Tax Authority cannot prosecute assessee, when Central Tax Authority already initiated action in respect of same matter
Gujarat High Court held that as per CBIC circular dated 23.02.2021 provisionally attached movable property (including bank account) should be released when the taxable person offers any immovable property in lieu of the same.
The material on record discloses that undisputedly, the respondents encashed the bank guarantees of the petitioner on 23.09.2019 and the same was retained and was lying with them from that date onwards up to 05.01.2022 when the said sum of Rs.4,73,26,512/- was refunded back to the petitioner.
HC held that assessee cannot be penalised for an inadvertent error in submitting an erroneous information, which had already been rectified. Revenue Department should examine information as submitted by assessee and process its claim for refund of unutilized ITC
HC set aside order cancelling GST Registration of assessee, passed on the ground that assessee had failed to reply to Show Cause Notice
Delhi High Court held that merely because an officer of customs contemplates that a question may arise for consideration, does not mean that the question is pending consideration. Accordingly, the same cannot bar Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR) from deciding the issue in an application for advance ruling.
Bombay High Court held that there is no transfer of property in goods when furniture manufactured is transferred from one unit to other. Hence, there would be no violation of condition (i) or (vii) of the Notification No. 30/97-CUS dated 1 April 1997 as there is no transfer in violation of the actual user condition.
