HC lambasts AO for passing order which shows total non application of mind and not granting opportunity of hearing to petitioner in violation of section 75(4) of CGST Act.
So far as the penalty is concerned on such refundable amount, petitioner is not liable to pay the same since admittedly the respondent/revenue authorities’ own case is that the amount of refund in question was paid to the petitioner due to mistake on their part and for no fault on the part of the petitioner.
Authority concerned to revoke the impugned order of cancellation of GST registration immediately, if petitioner pays interest and penalty within two weeks from date.
Lakshya Vintrade Private Limited Vs Union of India And Ors. (Calcutta High Court) The sole ground by the petitioner for challenging the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act is that the same is not a speaking order and the reasons recorded therein are not well-reasoned and satisfactory which according to me cannot be […]
PCIT Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Undisputedly, the departmental authorities have disallowed the CSR expenses, firstly, on the reasoning that it is of capital nature, and secondly, it is not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. As per section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, every company having […]
Bombay High Court held that CBDT Guidelines dated 14th June 2019 prescribing time limit for application for compounding of offence is contrary to provisions of section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act.
GST: Show Cause Notice Can Still Be Issued U/S. 73 – No Bar Of Limitation Came Into Force For The Ay 2017-18 Under Notification No. 13/2022/05.07.2022
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment sustainable on failure of true and full disclosure of demanded material on the part of the petitioner.
Bombay High Court held that in absence of any receipt of new information or reference to any new material on record, it can be concluded that re-opening of assessment is merely because of change of opinion and the same is unsustainable in law.
HC quashed and set aside the orders blocking Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) of assessee without providing an opportunity of personal hearing.
