Alkem Laboratories Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax (Calcutta High Court) Petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents Authority concerned in refunding the admitted refundable amount as indicated in pages 30,31 and 32 of the writ petition which comes around Rs.5,58,54,103.61 in total. Petitioner […]
CIT Vs Sikhya ‘O’ Anusandhan (Orissa High Court) Court in the first round of litigation accepted the legal position that without there being a valid search warrant authorizing the search in the premises of the Assessee under Section 132 of the Act, the question of initiating proceedings under Section 153A of the Act did not […]
Telangana High Court granted two months time for submission of reply to the show cause notice. Further, stated that extended period of two months will be excluded for the purpose of computing period of 180 days under Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
It is observed that vide impugned order passed by Additional Commissioner (Appeal), the appeal of the petitioner against the order passed by Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes under Section 74 of BGST Act, 2017; and summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 has been rejected without considering the points taken by the petitioner in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
Appellants to file a representation before assessing officer and explaining as to why two PAN numbers were obtained by appellants / assessee.
Not only GST registration cancellation order is nonspeaking, but cryptic in nature and the reason of cancellation not decipherable therefrom. Principles of natural justice stand violated and the order needs to be quashed as it entails penal and pecuniary consequences.
HC issues notice on the challenge to the vires of Rule 118 being contrary to section 142(11)(c) of the CGST Act. The petitioner contends no such condition in the statute. The transitional provision is for smooth transition into the new taxation regime and intends to avoid double taxation.
Provident Housing Limited Vs Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Karnataka High Court) Brief Facts of the Case: The petitioner is engaged in the business of real estate development. On receiving respondent’s request to allot an apartment in the project, the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale and Construction with Respondent on 10/09/14. The proposed […]
Orissa High Court held that Court does not consider it expedient to go beyond what is stated in Union of India Vrs. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 2 SCC 603 for the purpose of ascertaining quantum of refund in case of zero-rated supplies as prescribed under Rule 89(4) of the GST Rules .
Gujarat High Court held that when AO has reason to believe and have prima facie material for commencement of re-assessment proceedings, sufficiency/ correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered. Reopening justified.
