Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition stating that the impugned order cannot be held to be in violation of principles of natural justice as the said order was preceded by a show cause notice and the petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the same.
Hemant Nevandram Lalwani Vs ITO (TDS) (Bombay High Court) 1. A complaint u/s. 276B, r/w. section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relevant to the Financial Year 2016-17, has been filed and is pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s 38th Court at Mumbai. The said complaint has been filed against […]
Telangana High Court held that as all the material facts were fully and truly disclosed reopening of assessment on mere change of opinion is unsustainable in law.
Firmenich Aromatics Production (India) Private Limited Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) 1. The petitioner is a private limited company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, is aggrieved by the action of the respondent authority in rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner vide order dated 29/07/2022 and upholding the refund […]
Kpm Enterprises Vs The Commissioner, Delhi Goods And Service Tax & Ors (Delhi High Court) Appellant submit that alleged inspection by GST department, is in violation of the Rule 25 of 2017 GST Rules as the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to be present at the site. Further, the respondent has also not uploaded […]
HC held that we are of the opinion that the Officer acted in a reckless illegal manner leading to unwarranted litigation being filed in Court.
Emerson Process Management Power & Water Solutions India Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) In the present case, the petitioner’s request for refund of CENVAT credit in cash was rejected for the reason that it was filed beyond the period of limitation. The petitioner submits that although it was no longer entitled […]
DRP is not empowered to set aside any proposed variation or issue any direction under Section 144C(5) for further enquiry for passing the assessment order and therefore, the disallowance proposed under Section 37 (1) of the Act was without jurisdiction.
Section 83 of the CGST Act mandating that a provisional attachment order would have a life span of only one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1). After expiry of a period of one year, such provisional attachment would cease to have effect.
HC held that as the issue pertains to cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner, it would be just and proper if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner.
