Madras High Court rules uploading GST notices to the common portal is sufficient but often ineffective service. Court urges tax officers to use alternate methods.
Andhra HC allows GST refund for zero-rated services despite service exclusion in registration; clarifies scope of CGST/IGST provisions.
Dealers registered under Value Added Tax Act (VAT Act), 2008 were duty bound to reverse or debit the input tax credit as prescribed under Section 13(6) of the VAT after the discontinuation of business by the operation of law.
Gujarat High Court held that imposed a token cost of Rs. 1,000 on department for disregarding the directions by Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [CESTAT] and matter remanded for fresh de novo order.
Kerala High Court directs CBI investigation into the allegations of amassment of wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income against Chief Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister of Kerala.
Assessee-a government-owned entity, had initially filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17, declaring nil income after setting off carried-forward losses and reported book profits of Rs. 26.90 crore under the MAT provisions of Section 115JB.
Madras High Court held that the existence of an alternative remedy precludes the petitioner from approaching this Court through a writ petition unless there is an exceptional circumstance.
Madras High Court held that service of notice/ order under GST by making available in the common portal is valid mode of service in terms of section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Calcutta High Court held that liberty is granted to the petitioner to respond to notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act as the respondents are on the verge of bringing the assessment proceedings to a conclusion.
Delhi High Court held that facts narrated in notice u/s. 148A(b) couldn’t lead to conclusion that income has escaped assessment. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings initiated is liable to be set aside.
