Learned counsel has submitted that as per the prosecution, the total liability of the petitioner turns out to be Rs.2.5 crores and the petitioner has volunteered to deposit half of the amount within ten days subject to final adjustment.
Petitioner submits that the impugned notifications are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as they fail to satisfy the test of reasonable classification. He states that no differentiation in tax treatment can be created between passenger transport services rendered by auto drivers facilitated through e-commerce platforms versus passenger transport services rendered by auto drivers offline.
Respondent is directed to release the vehicle subject to payment of the applicable SGST and CGST by the petitioner to be treated as deposit. The respondent shall issue appropriate notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why SGST and CGST directed to be deposited should be demanded and why penalty should not be imposed on the petitioner.
Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Petitioner had in its annual report mentioned about the technical know how fee, royalty and technical assistance fee that it had paid to Skoda Auto a.s. and Volks Wagen AG. Petitioner had also filed Form 3CEB in which it had disclosed about details and […]
Rajeev Mishra Vs State of Odisha And Another (Orissa High Court) Conclusion: Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, availability of prima facie case against assessee, coupled with the fact that a huge amount of public money had been misappropriated by availing and passing of bogus ITC, assessee was […]
Asia Pacific Institute of Management Vs Office of The Joint Labour Commissioner (Delhi High Court) Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 is a beneficial legislation for the purpose of safeguarding the rights of pregnant women. The provisions of the Act have to be given effect to, in letter and spirit. Technical issues would not come in the […]
Dr. R. P. Patel & Ors. Vs Asst. Director of Income Tax (Investigations) & Ors. (Kerala High Court) Authorised officer conducting the search & seizure cannot retain the documents/ assets beyond 15 days and encash IVPs for adjustment against tax liability Hon’ble Kerala High Court set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge denying […]
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the FIR registered against Income Tax officials as Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 mandates that no suit shall be brought in any civil Court to set aside or modify any proceeding taken or order made under the Act and no prosecution, suit or other proceeding shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government for any act done in good faith under the Act.
Due to compelling circumstances and because of the technical glitches and difficulties, assessee was not able to file TRAN-1 form, therefore, High Court directed GST Authority to re-open online portal to enable filing of Form TRAN-1 electronically or accept manually.
Since the provisions under the Regulations to punish the Customs House Agent for violation and contravention of the Regulations was in addition to the penal provisions prescribed under the parent act, namely, the Customs Act, therefore, mis-declaration of goods and attempt to export such goods by assessee-customs house agent was punishable under Section 114 of the Customs Act.
