Vodafone Idea Limited Vs Government of NCT of Delhi (Delhi High Court) The HC directed the Revenue Department to issue the rectified C-Forms, subject to the verification of entitlement on merits, without being burdened with issue concerning limitation. The petitioner is a telecom service provider. It undertook inter-state sales (C Forms). There was an error. […]
Whether on account of non reconciliation of purchases reflected by the party in GSTR 1 without supplying necessary details, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/144B is sustainable in law?
Delhi High Court held that Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 provides suo moto power to the institute to initiate disciplinary proceedings against its member without any written complaint/ allegation.
Allahabad High Court held that High Courts order directed quashing of notice and consequential order. However, the outstanding amount on web portal continued for a period of 7 months. It clearly shows act and action of the opposite party is deliberate in nature. Hence, contemnor – opposite parity i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax penalized with fine and simple imprisonment for one week.
Delhi High Court held that restrictions on utilization of input tax credit imposed under rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules cannot extend beyond the period of one year.
Calcutta High Court held that order passed without considering statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act which are not retracted is liable to be interfered.
ESL Steel Limited Vs Bharat Heavy Electronic Limited (Jharkhand High Court) The Petitioner made supplies for export to Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL). The goods were ultimately exported, albeit with delay. Petitioner and BHEl made representations to the Revenue for condonation of delay in exports. Reliance was placed on Para 5.1 of Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST […]
Patna HC set aside the ex-parte rejection orders passed by the Revenue Department, owing to the violation of natural justice principles.
Calcutta High Court held that the rates of tax as increased would be prospective and shall not affect the pending contracts and therefore would be entitled to the compounded rate of tax at 2% for the relevant period.
Bombay High Court held that order passed without taking into account the reply and document produced by the petitioner to the show cause notice is liable to be quashed and set aside.
