Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & GST (Madras High Court) Facts- Exemption claimed by the petitioner was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner sought settlement of dispute under the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. However, revenue argued that lubricant figures in 4th schedule of the Act and such goods are expressly […]
Sunil Tandon Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Conclusion: Writ petition was not maintainable on account of the alternative statutory remedies available to assessee before NCLT/ NCLAT . Held: Assessee approached High Court on the ground that under the proviso to Section 241(2), it was only the Principal Bench of NCLT at Delhi which […]
In the said case, the Hon’ble High Court rejected appeal of Revenue and have observed that deduction under Section 36 would be available to the assesse as the business undertaken by the assesse could not be termed as extension of its business.
Cognizant Technology Solutions India P. Ltd. Vs Asst.CIT (Madras High Court) Facts- Impugned notice was issued under section 148 for reopening of the assessment. The petitioner questioned the legal validity of the initiation of the reopening proceedings. Conclusion- If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the particular issue has not been considered or […]
Evertime Overseas Private Limited Vs Union of India and ors. (Bombay High Court) Evertime Overseas Private Limited (Petitioner) filed petition claiming that he is entitled to refund under the provisions of Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act). Factually, the Petitioner claimed the refund under the provisions of Section […]
K. R. Steel Traders Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court) Summary Order in GST DRC-07 quashed by Patna High Court for violating the principles of natural justice M/s K.R. Steel Traders (Petitioner) filed petition being aggrieved against Order dated August 16, 2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Patna South Circle and […]
The case of the petitioner is that the impugned attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act is without any statutory sanction as it is consequent upon action under Section 67 of the Act, which deals with the power of the authorities to engage in inspection, search and seizure. The scope of Section 87 is wholly based upon the ‘opinion’ of the concerned Commissioner to the effect that the interests of the revenue were to be safeguarded and sanctioning coercive recovery proceedings of the nature of bank attachment in a particular case.
Ankit Gupta challenges assessment order and recovery notice in Rajasthan HC, citing lack of proper hearing. HC dismisses, citing alternative statutory remedy of appeal.
Md. Abul Kalam Vs Union of India (Gauhati High Court) It is trite, though of great significance that if any oral argument is advanced, only the Judge who had heard can appreciate the nuances of the case, the evidence adduced, based on oral arguments submitted by the parties or through the counsel. Naturally if hearing […]
Transway Wine Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (Calcutta High Court) Impugned notice is quashed solely on the ground that the impugned notice was issued in the name of non-existing company in spite of revenue having notice and knowledge of non-existence of such Company. Quashing of this notice will not prevent the respondents from issuing fresh notice in […]
