The show cause notice does not even allege that petitioner has obtained registration by fraud or willful misstatement or suppression of facts. There is a digital signature appended in the said document which says signature is not verified. Therefore, we have to take it to be an unsigned document. We fail to understand how it can be an official document.
Held that the conclusion that mere non-payment of duties is not equivalent to collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of fact is untenable as the Act contemplates a positive action which betrays a negative intent of wilful default.
Abdul Majeed Vs ITO (Rajasthan High Court) High Court held that while passing an order under Section 148A of the Act, the authority is required to reach satisfaction to not only that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, but in case where three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, […]
Hemraj Jain Vs State of West Bengal (Calcutta High Court) Section 107 of the WBGST 2017 Act provides that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an Adjudicating Authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which such decision […]
Held that when there is an appeal remedy available under Section 107, it is the settled proposition that, writ petition cannot be filed by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction. Petitioner can file an appeal before the Appellate Authority and file a condone delay petition stating the Covid-19 situation.
Held that assessee submitted the records. Hence, the assessee has discharged his initial burden and the burden shifts on the assessing officer to enquire further into the matter which he failed to do.
Educational Initiatives Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) The writ-applicant claimed that the services provided by it to the schools/education organizations in relation to the ASSET examination is exempted from the payment of the GST under the Entry No. 66(b)(iv) of the Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 as well […]
HC held that We fail to understand, prima facie, as to how the authorities get this power to take away amount from anybody’s account without account holder’s permission or even after taking away the money, they would not even consider it necessary to inform the account-holder that money from their account has been debited. This is nothing but high handedness and gross abuse of power.
Held that the State of Maharashtra has legislative competence to enact amendment to incorporate a condition/modifying the earlier condition for entertaining an appeal for a mandatory pre-deposit for filing appeals against the assessment orders pertaining to all the goods after 16th September 2016
Held that the limitation period of six months is applicable from 1st April 2022. Accident in this case had occurred on 23.05.2019. Accordingly, limitation period of six months u/s 166(3) of Motor Vehicles Act doesn’t apply.
