S.R.Trust Vs PCIT (Madras High Court) ITAT held that procedure of cancellation of the registration already enjoyed either under 12A regime or 12AA regime in the case of the petitioner, in view of the new regime having been introduced, shall take place only after disposing the application made by the trust or institution, under the […]
Heatworks Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner, State Tax (Calcutta High Court) In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated January 18, 2022 passed by the respondent-GST authority rejecting the claim for refund to the petitioner on the ground of limitation. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of rejection […]
Pravin Talakshibhai Kotak Vs PCIT (Gujarat High Court) HC held that Principal Commissioner shall look into all documents which are on record and take an appropriate call as regards the attachment of the property-in-question. FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, […]
Delhi High Court directs timely adjudication of objections on default tax assessment. Create an online portal, warns against delay. Read the judgment details.
A notice which does not mention the particulars, on which the case against the person is based, cannot provide a foundation for the proceedings that follow.
ENA and the Malt Spirit in its original form are not the alcoholic liquor fit for human consumption and would therefore, not come within the amended definition of clause(d) of Section 2 of the CST Act and in view thereof, the petitioner would not be entitled to get the ‘C’ Form, as claimed by the petitioner herein.
Premium Traders Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) It is admitted case of the respondents that the invoice accompanied with the goods in question was issued by the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent no.3 has committed a manifest error of law not to afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner despite persuasion made by […]
When there was an alternative and equally efficacious remedy open to a litigant, he should request to pursue that remedy and not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.
The entire controversy revolves around the question as to whether the assessee has been able to provide explanation for difference of stock between the stock submitted to the bank as on 28/3/2005 and the stock indicated in the audit report for the period ending 31/03/2005 relating to raw material, stock-in-process and finished goods.
Purnadisha Trading Private Limited Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court) Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the impugned order dated March 30, 2022 under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Annexure P1/p.21) on the grounds that the impugned order dated March 30, 2022 has been passed by the assessing officer concerned […]
