Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) With effect from the year 2011 a time limit has been prescribed for determining the amount of duty of excise where it is possible. It cannot be gainsaid that when the legislature prescribes a time limit, it is incumbent upon the authority to […]
Calcutta High Court held that appeal against acquittal of accused in a cheque bounce case can be filed only before High Court under Section 378(4) of CrPC and not before Sessions Court.
Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated cancelling GST registration as well as order dismissing appeal filed by petitioner. In this case Assessing Officer has suo motu cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner on the ground of non-filing of returns and as GST Tribunal has not been constituted under Section 109 of the CGST Act, petitioner would be left without any remedy.
Valecha Investments Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) HC held that mere default in payment of tax, unless such default arises out of circumstances which has the effect of assessee defeating payment, the expression ‘willful attempt’ cannot be imported to mean failure to pay tax. It is also held in paragraph 10 that mere […]
Petitioner, wishing to rectify the error, had attempted to submit an application for amendment of the registration certificate. However, while filling the application Online, the Accountant had selected ‘cancellation’ from the drop down menu instead of ‘modification’. It is thus that the impugned order has come to be passed cancelling the registration with effect from 01.05.2020.
Agriculture Produce Market Committee Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) It is observed that reply filed by the petitioner to the notice has not been taken into consideration especially in view of the fact that such reply was filed on 31.03.2022 and on the same day the impugned order came to be passed on 10.41 p.m. […]
Pramod Kumar Vs ACIT (Telangana High Court) HC is of the view that present is not a fit case to interdict the proceedings at the very threshold. Reasons have been assigned by the assessing officer as to why the explanation given by the petitioner could not be accepted. Certainly, such reasons given have a nexus […]
Merely placing the blame on the counsel cannot justify the inordinate delay of 1546 days. Even the particulars have not been furnished as to when the appeal was filed, when it was returned, the name of the counsel, whether the appellant had thereafter met the counsel etc. On the basis of such bald statements, we are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 1546 days. No sufficient cause has been shown.
Raja Ram Dalmia Vs PCIT (Calcutta High Court) High Court held that department has to first initiate proceedings against the defaulting private limited company and upon failure in their attempt to recover the tax dues power under section 179 of the Act could have been invoked. On facts it is clear that no such attempt […]
Allahabad High Court held that e-commerce intermediary i.e. Flipkart is not liable for the goods put up for the sale by the seller on its platform. Such e-commerce networks are exempted from liability under the I.T. Act, 2000.
