Where Input Tax Credit (ITC) had been wrongly availed exceeds Rs.5 crores it would amount to a cognizable and non-bailable offense and the offence was punishable with imprisonment for a term, which could extend to five years and with fine under section 132 (1) (i) of the CGST Act.
From perusal of the order passed by the authorities, it is evident that the authorities have accepted the books of accounts produced by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, in its order, has admitted that the payment of speed money is a trade practice which is followed by the assessee and similar business concerns functioning for speedy completion of their work.
Where the petitioner instead of submitting TRAN-1 form for claiming ITC submitted GSTR-3B. The court held that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of claiming the credit lying in its account on the stipulated date only on the basis of procedural or technical wrangles that one form TRAN-1 was not filled by the petitioner particularly when the petitioner has reflected the said credit in its return GSTR-3B.
Rule 4(a) of the Re-Export Of Imported Goods (Drawback Of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995 provides for exemption or waiver of the requirement physical verification and cannot form the sole basis for rejection of the claim for drawback of duty under Section 74 of the Act.
Haresh S. Bhanushali Vs Union of India and Ors. (Bombay High Court) There is a clear distinction between the conveyance used to transport the seized goods and the action of the importer which will be the subject matter of investigation. Both the issues relate to two different parties. On perusal of the extracts of statements […]
Assesssee alleged to have coerced and pressurized the writ applicant to transfer an amount of almost Rs. 9 Crore to the account of the department is shocking.
By no stretch of imagination Form VAT 240 can be treated as a returns for the purposes of claiming input tax credit, especially in the light of the fact that filing of returns to compute the net tax liability has to take place keeping in view Section 10(3) and 10(4) of the KVAT Act.
H. Bhima Ram Vs Principal Secretary (Madras High Court) To opt for publication of an intended acquisition in little known newspapers may amount to a fraud on the statute, and a fraud on the right to property of the citizens. Of all the four citations herein quoted, the earliest judgment delivered was on 30.06.2000 [ […]
(i) Whether the gain on sale of stock options in USA that were given to the Indian employee by M/s.Google Inc., USA amounts to perquisites taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or not?; (ii) Whether the amounts shown in Form-16 as Tax Deducted at Source on such perquisites would be the exclusive gain made by the Assessee on such stock options issued by the Holding Company in USA is sufficient to hold that it is taxable under the head ‘salary’ as ‘perquisites’ with reference to the provisions under Section 5(1) (c) and 6(6) (a) read with Section 17?;
B-Earth And Spire India Pvt. Ltd Vs Central Board of Indirect Tax And Customs & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Mr. Harpreet Singh, on instructions from Deputy Commissioner (Legal), CGST (South), submits that at the time of submission of the Form SVLDRS-I, the returns of the Petitioner were not visible on the GST portal. However, he […]
