Assistant Commissioner-V, Sales Tax was acquitted for allegedly demanding Rs.4,000 as illegal gratification after 25 years as there was no recovery from the appellant, presumption U/s 20 regarding acceptance of bribe could not be raised against him and there was neither any demand nor acceptance or recovery from the appellant. Hence, all the ingredients of an offence U/s 7 and 13(1)(d) could not be satisfied. The conviction order was prima facie unlawful as Section 20 was not invoked.
Pinax Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as also perused the record, we are in agreement with Sri Gautam Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the principles of natural justice, in passing the order stands violated. Also, we are of the view […]
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has relied on the Section 28AAA of the Customs Act to contend that the SCN is not time barred inasmuch as the petitioner is guilty of suppression of facts and wilful mis-statements in claiming the benefits under the Scheme. Prima facie we find merit in the contention of the respondent.
Pro Sportify Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax (Punjab and Haryana High Court) The Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 came into force w.e.f. 01.09.2019, thus any enquiry/audit/investigation initiated after aforesaid date cannot make any person ineligible because period running from 01.09.2019 to 31.12.2019 is meant for filing application and […]
Flair Writing Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) The Gujarat High Court issued the notice to Government over constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 50 of CGST Act, 2017. The subject matter of challenge in the present litigation is to the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 50 of the […]
The Hon’ble High Court concluded that order passed by JCCT Appeals cannot be said erroneous. Also concluded that the position adopted by ADC is not in line with KVAT Laws where the order passed by ADC was based on assumption that the benefit of refund of tax paid on purchase of Inputs can be granted only in respect of manufacture and processing of goods which is not at all prescribed under the law. Accordingly, there is no justification on the part of ADC in invoking revisional power u/s 64 (1) of the KVAT Act.
BGR Mining & Infra Limited Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court) We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties in respect of the issue of levy of interest under Section 50 of the Act on the gross tax liability as upheld in appeal by the Respondent Joint Commissioner of State Sales […]
VA Tech Wabag Ltd. Vs State of Assam (Gauhati High Court) The Rule 29 of the Assam Value Added Tax Rules 2005 provides that a claim for refund as provided under Section 50(1) of the AVAT Act, 2003 shall be made in Form 37 within 180 (one hundred and eighty days) from the date of […]
Mehrunnisa Mohamed Fazal Maniar Vs ITO (Gujrat High Court) The case on hand is not a case where the Income Tax Officer seeks to draw any fresh inference which could have been raised at the time of the original assessment on the basis of the materials placed before him by the assessee relating to the […]
Mr. Tushar Hemani, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant submits that the stay application has also been filed way back in the July, 2020.
