Since in matters of interception, seizure and detention, the GST Department did not recognise the concept of ‘working day’ and ‘holiday’, therefore, the order of detention was necessarily to be issued prior to the 7th day from date of detention/seizure of the conveyance/consignment in question, to validate both the interception and the SCN.
HC Held that already sanctioned GST refund not released due to technical glitches in the GST portal. Court directed the department to deal with the refund claim and, if eligible, pay back the refund claim with interest
S. Raheja Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs Office of Income Tax Officer (Gujarat High Court) On perusal of the Explanation (1) of the Section 148, it is clear that that for the purpose of Section 148A, the information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment means any information […]
Touchstone Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court allows reopening of AY 2013-14 (despite being beyond 6 years from 1st April 2021), basing on extension as per Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). The time limit for issuing notice under unamended Section 149 which […]
It is by now well settled that the validity and legality of an order has to be tested in terms of reasons assigned in the order itself. The distinction that is now sought to be drawn has been taken only at the stage of filing a reply and counter to the writ petition.
Yukti Construction Pvt. Ltd Vs Asha Sharma (Uttarakhand High Court) An arbitration agreement does not require registration under the Registration Act. Even if it is found as one of the clauses in a contract or instrument, it is an independent agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration, which is independent of the main contract or […]
Total amount of duty in clause (d) of section 123 of the 2019 Act, for SVLDRS, could only mean the total amount of outstanding duty payable by a declarant making voluntary disclosure, as it could never have been intended by the legislature that the revenue would collect and/or recover tax liability which had already been discharged by the declarant.
Jai Matadi Enterprises Vs Commissioner of State Tax (Bombay High Court) In this case ITC was blocked in case of 10 suppliers, by Invoking GST Rule 86A. Bombay High Court vide interim order directed GST Department to unblock the Input Tax Credit Account. FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT 1.Ms. Vyas seeks […]
PCIT Vs Arshia Global Tradecom Private Limited (Calcutta High Court) In the case on hand the reassessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to justify the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee failed to produce original cash memos and bills for the sales alleged to have been effected and to substantiate the cash deposit into their […]
Held that as there is no actual transfer of the possession of the aircraft in question to the user of the aircraft, rendering of the Air Transport Services by the Assessee will not tantamount to Sale as envisaged by Section 2(g)(iv) of the OST Act.
