Kasturi & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals-1) (Madras High Court) Summary: The Madras High Court, in Kasturi & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals-1) [W.P. No. 18642 of 2024], clarified that the date of online filing of a GST appeal is to […]
The Calcutta High Court ruled that the State GST Department cannot initiate proceedings when the Central GST Department has already initiated proceedings on the same matter.
Chhattisgarh High Court dismisses GST refund claim by Kunal BSBK JV, highlighting issues with contract terms and unchallenged earlier orders.
Present appeal has been filed by the appellant mainly contesting that whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there has been no diversion of income by overriding charge in respect of amount transferred to Statutory Reserve Fund in compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sec.45IC read with Sec. 45Q of RBI Act.
In Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), the Court concluded that, while the faceless system centralizes case handling through the NFAC, this framework does not completely replace or nullify the JAO‘s role.
Madras High Court held that issue relating to pre-closure premium was already considered and allowed by the assessing authority. Thus, invocation of revisionary power u/s. 263 for mere disagreement with the view of the assessing authority is unjustified in law.
Since 1986 to 1997, Petitioner acquired shares, in tranches, of Respondent No.4-Company. The Petitioner subsequently sold some of these shares. In April 2007, the shares of Rs.10/- each of Respondent No.4-Company were split into shares of Rs.5/- each.
Bombay High Court held that no case has been made by any of the petitioners to bypass the statutory alternate remedies. Accordingly, petition dismissed on account of available alternative remedies.
Madras High Court quashes tax demand order in Diamond Cargo Movers case, allowing the petitioner to file a reply and remit 25% disputed tax.
Madras High Court held that recovery action against the Directors of the company under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Revenue Recovery Act not justified since company is non-existent.
