Held that duty demand unsustainable in absence of any evidence that job work charges paid by the company to the job workers flowed back to them and in absence of any evidence that that the Company is involved in clandestine removal of goods
Held that goods can be released provisionally under Section 110A of the Act, only in favour of an owner. Provisional release of goods is not possible if the ownership of the goods in question is not proved.
Bombay HC set aside the assessment orders under the Maharashtra VAT Act whereby a Developer was assessed as un-registered dealer for the periods from 2011-12 onwards
Bail granted to one of the co-accused, can be a strong ground for another co-accused to also be enlarged on bail. Ashish Rajput Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court)
PCIT-4 Vs Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd (Calcutta High Court) Whether the interest subsidy and excise refund would be treated as capital receipt or revenue receipt for the purpose of computation of book profit under the provision of Section 115JB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 ? Identical issue was also considered by this Court in […]
Merely GST refund claim on the basis of averments not suffice unless & until the said claim assesse is corroborated by documentary evidence.
Nitin Goyal Vs State of Haryana (Punjab and Haryana High Court) The allegations against the petitioner are of cheating the State by claiming input credit through fake invoices by using fake addresses of the firms created through different proprietors and defrauded the State to the extent of more than Rs. One crore. A perusal of […]
Bharat Gordhandas Patel Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) HC allows bail for GST related offence on deposit of Rs. 10 Lakh in Six Instalments and held that even on allegations of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case and whether bail is granted or […]
In cheque Bounce case arraigning of the sole proprietary concern rather was a condition precedent for making the complaint well constituted, as it becomes the principal offender, and, with its remaining un-impleaded, as such, the absence of its impleadment cannot make the instant complaint to be well constituted, nor, any valid prosecution can in its absence, be drawn, even against the accused petitioner, who can be assigned only a vicarious liability alongwith it.
CGST authorities and SGST authorities would consider Petitioner’s case sympathetically when it comes to interest and penalty. Unless they have some other reason, Petitioner should not be saddled with interest and penalty.
