CGST Act does not disentitle or render assessee ineligible to apply for GST registration afresh After Cancellation: Delhi HC in Salwa Foods Proprietorship Mr. Amaan Sheikh Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax
Allahabad High Court rules in favor of Zhuzoor Infratech, quashing GST penalty due to a technical e-way bill error, citing precedent from Sun Flag Iron & Steel.
No goods had been sold, and forged bills were prepared. Furthermore, no vehicles had passed through toll plazas, and no registration numbers were available. On appeal.
The writ petitioner impugns the order dated 27 March 2018 in terms of which the respondent has come to reject applications filed by it seeking refund of excess tax wrongly deducted and deposited u/s. 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Delhi High Court held that reopening of an assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of communication from ACIT, without independent application of mind, is invalid and liable to be set aside.
Delhi High Court held that provision of section 292B doesn’t include passing of order u/s. 148 overlooking error apparent on the face of the record. Thus, order passed overlooking error is liable to be set aside.
This is because the granite blocks, which had been exported by the petitioner, were zero rated goods and consequently, the relevant date would be explanation 2 (a) (i) to Section 54 (14) of the CGST Act.
The bench stated that Tribunal after concluding that the BCCI’s Appeal before it “was not maintainable”, exceeded its jurisdiction in recording the above observations virtually upholding the impugned communication/order.
The Delhi High Court quashed a tax reassessment notice issued to Indus Towers Ltd. for AY 2009-10, citing procedural lapses and missed statutory deadlines.
Gujarat High Court rules that a jurisdictional assessing officer cannot override the faceless assessment scheme under Section 151A of the Income Tax Act.
