Suresh Chand Gupta Vs State of Govt of NCT Delhi (Delhi High Court) Facts- The Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) filed a criminal complaint under Section 132 and 135 (1)(a) of the Customs Act, before the learned Trial Court. The complaint stated that intelligence reports have been received that M/s Elgin Electronics, of which petitioner […]
Inner Wheel Club of Central Calcutta Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) HC directs Income Tax Authorities to consider Representations made on 25/03/2022 and subsequent dates and then pass Order under sec 148A(d). They have been also directed to give the assessee opportunity of hearing. FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CALCUTTA […]
The petitioner shall be entitled for return of the surety bond and the bank guarantee furnished. If the petitioner, upon filing the appeal with the deposit as aforesaid, files with the first respondent, the details of the appeal and the deposit made, the first respondent shall within ten [10] working days from the date of receipt of such information, return the bank guarantee/surety bond furnished.
Tax authorities are to adjudicate upon the tax liability in accordance with law. The liability to taxation in respect of assessee should not escape assessee and likewise where the assessee was not in a position to show certain evidences which impacts the tax liability, reasonable opportunity should be afforded to such assessee to bring such evidences to the notice of the tax authorities.
No interest and penalty to be imposed if credit is merely availed but not utilised | Section 73 & 74 Interest will be attracted only if wrong/excess ITC availed & utilized
Once the amount is properly reflected in the ledger as outstanding and payable, the Statute of limitation begins on the following date.
P.K. Ores Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Sales Tax (Orissa High Court) It is admitted fact on record that the petitioner has deposited an amount of tax admitted in self-assessed returns beyond the time stipulated under Section 39 and hence the CT & GST Officer, Bhubaneswar-II Circle, Bhubaneswar had raised demand of interest to the […]
HC Held that, the Revenue Department could not have intercepted or detained the vehicle in the absence of a second e-way bill as the first e-way bill was valid during the interception period.
HC held that there should be reasons to believe that credit of input tax available in the Electronic Credit Ledger has been fraudulently availed or the assessee is ineligible. Reasons have to be recorded by the proper officer and a speaking order shall be passed.
MBR Flexibles Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Enforcement) (Gujarat High Court) It is clear from the record that Notice as well as order impugned was passed on the same date i.e. 06/01/2022. An opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to the petitioners and therefore, it is in breach of principles of natural justice. Considering […]
