Celestial Aviation Trading 64 Limited Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Facts- The petitioner entered into an Aircraft Specified Lease Agreement with Air India Limited for lease of one aircraft for a period of 12 years. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner made applications under Section 197 of the Act for ‘Nil‟ rate […]
HC set aside the orders rejecting refund application, solely on the ground that reasons for rejection of refund have not been recorded in writing in accordance with Rule 92 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules) and remanded back the matter to Revenue Department for reconsideration and directed to complete the exercise expeditiously.
Counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that instead of giving composite registration, they have given registration to petitioner as regular dealer vide order dated 09.06.2018 and now even the regular registration is being cancelled vide order dated 30.09.2021
Tvl. Sree Karumariamman Granites Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Writ petition was not maintainable when the appeal remedy was available and there was nothing to demonstrate that it was not efficacious. Held: Assessee-partnership firm was carrying on business in quarrying and marketing granites. The Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited (TAMIN), which was a Government company […]
CIT Vs South Indian Bank Ltd (Kerala High Court) Facts- The AO through the assessment order disallowed the claim of the assessee under Section 36(1)(viia). Similarly, the AO disallowed the revaluation of unquoted securities adopted by the assessee. The appeal of the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was allowed in part. Further, in the appeal […]
HC quashed the cancellation of GST registration order as no opportunity of hearing was accorded. Further, said that the denial of opportunity of hearing to the assessee as is mandated in the first proviso to Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) vitiates the proceedings as well as the orders cancelling the registration.
The portion of the observations that are highlighted would reflect on the professional conduct of the petitioner, argues his counsel; learned Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the writ petition contending that the said observations are case specific and therefore petitioner may not read too much in that; so contending he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
Avon Udhyog Vs State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court) Suspension of a registration of an assessee has its own consequences – it brings the entire business of an assessee to a stand still. In a way it is worse than cancellation. Against cancellation, an assessee can take legal remedies but against suspension pending an enquiry, […]
Tarakeswar Estate Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) The petitioner has challenged the impugned assessment order dated 20th March, 2021 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to assessment year 2018-2019, mainly on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice as well as total non-application of mind […]
Premprakash Bansal Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Apprehending arrest in Crime No. 0178 of 2021 registered with APMC Police Station, Navi Mumbai for the offences punishable under Section 420, 406 and 34 of the I.P.C, Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail. 3. On 10th August, 2021, this Court declined […]
