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 […]
Explore the legal aspects of information disclosure under RTI Act in Amit Kumar Shrivastava Vs CIC. Court emphasizes the burden on public authorities to justify non-disclosure.
Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) Rajasthan High Court relied on Gujarat High Court judgment dated 19.12.2018 in case of Torrent Power Ltd. Vs. Union of India, and restrained GST department from raising any demand and/or taking any coercive measures to recover any tax on the basis of impugned […]
Petitioner could not furnish his reply as no date or time was indicated therein. As such, the cancellation of registration resulting from such an incomplete/deficient show-cause notice (SCN) also cannot be sustained being violative of principles of natural justice.
Reassessment by AO was justified as it could not be said that there was no material before AO to reopen the assessment and he proceeded mechanically based on the sole information received from the Investigation Wing and the impugned notice was without jurisdiction and contrary to Section 147.
Alkem Laboratories Limited Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Recovery Proceeding under GST can be initiated only after 3 Months from the date of the service of the order A perusal of the provisions of Section 78, referred to above, would indicate that no recovery proceedings can be initiated against the assessee before the […]
It is submitted that it is a case of total evasion of GST and disposing the manufactured goods without showing any record about its manufacturing activity and clandestine purchase of such products without paying of any GST has resulted in evasion to the tune of Rs. 9 Crores and odd. It is submitted that before the Sessions Court, the applicant had made offer to deposit an amount of 10% of the tax evaded and therefore, the applicant must be directed to comply with such commitment given to the trial Court.
L. Sivaramakrishnan Vs Deputy Director (Madras High Court) In this Even the C.B.I. has not found that Sivaramakrishnan benefitted financially from the criminal activity of fudging records. Of course, these findings of the C.B.I. are not binding on the Enforcement Directorate, but, this Court cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to this, especially in the light of […]
Respondent is engaged in providing services with regard to maintenance and repair of computer software. Vide Notification dated 21.08.2003, the maintenance services related to computers, computer systems or computer peripherals were exempt from payment of service tax.
Dilliraj Vs Deputy Director (Madras High Court) HC held that we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the Enforcement Directorate that the salaries and perquisites that were paid to Dilliraj (A.1) while he was in employment with FLCI would amount to proceeds of crime and any property purchased with that would stand tainted. […]
