S.R. Steel Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) In the peculiar facts of the present case as have been noted above, we lift the bar of alternative remedy as we find that the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled without issuance of any prior show cause notice. Also, the delay is largely on account of […]
The order is bad in law. This we say so, for two reasons- (a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; (b) order passed in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee.
The appellant undertakes Oil Palm cultivation and manufacture and production of crude palm oil. A controversy arose between the assessee and the revenue, with the revenue implementing Rule 7 of the Central Income Tax Rules, 1962 providing for assessment of income which is partly agricultural and partly business income.
PCIT Vs Delhi International (Karnataka High Court) Facts- Assessment orders were passed u/s 143(3) read with 153A, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee. The AO made certain additions and demanded tax thereon. The said assessment orders were challenged by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals), the […]
It is held that the petitioner assessee deductee is entitled to credit of the tax deducted at source with respect to amount of TDS for which Form No.16A issued by the employer deductor. Also held that the department is precluded from denying the benefit of the tax deducted at source by the employer during the relevant financial years to the petitioner.
Held that the retrospectivity of tax or its collection brought in by the Finance Act 16 of 2011 is not controlled by the validation clause in section 12 of that Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
The dispute in the present writ petition lies in a narrow compass and relates to the rejection of the petitioners claims for budgetary support under a ‘Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Service Tax’ regime on the ground that the claims were made for the period prior to the GST registration which is impermissible.
there seems to be a consistent view that if there is substantial compliance, denial of benefit of Input Tax Credit which is a beneficial scheme and framed with the larger public interest of bringing down the cascading effect of multiple taxes ought not to be frustrated on the ground of technicalities. In view of the above, we are inclined to affirm the order of the learned Single Judge in directing the petitioner/ respondent to enable the respondent herein to file a revised Form TRAN-1, by opening of the portal and that such exercise is to be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of issue this order.
There is no dispute that unaccounted cash and jewellery and valuables were recovered during the course of search conducted at the premises of the petitioner and the petitioner’s associates. These assets have to be taxed in the hands of the petitioner. To assess tax on the assets seized from the petitioner, there is no necessity for extending the petitioner the benefit of cross examination of witnesses.
‘Common Parlance Test, ‘Marketability Test; ‘Popular Meaning Test’ were tools for interpretation to arrive at a decision on the proper classification of tariff entry. Therefore, ‘manufactured sand’ would certainly fall under the entry ‘sand’, as it stood during the relevant period. The Notification dated 31.03.2015 was only clarificatory and that would not disentitle assessee to claim the reduced rate of tax at 5/5.5% under Entry 83 of the Third Schedule of the KVAT Act.
