The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a subsidiary of Huawei Technologies Coopertief U.A (Netherlands). The return of the petitioner was picked up for scrutiny.
The assessing authority, therefore, disallowed the deduction claimed by the appellant towards the purchase of paddy from the said persons and added this to the income declared by the appellant.
Kerala High Court held that assessment and penalty order mentioning old address of the appellant are liable to be set aside as against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, petitioner directed to immediately update his current address and e-mail ID.
Delhi High Court held that telecommunication towers would not fall within the ambit of Section 17(5)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. Thus, denial of input tax credit unsustainable in law.
Kerala High Court remanded the matter back to Appellate Authority since fact that the grant of discount has no tax effect under CGST has not been considered. Accordingly, order quashed and restored back.
The petitioner was a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. An assessment of the petitioner for the year 2015-16 was completed u/s. 25(1) of the KVAT Act by order dated 15.12.2018.
The Madras High Court remanded the case of AKR Academy, challenging the denial of exemption under Section 10(23C) due to an error in filing the income tax return.
Calcutta High Court examines the blocking of IGST credit under Rule 86A in Basanta Kumar Shaw’s case due to alleged mismatch in tax records for 2018-2021.
Allahabad High Court rules on Rule 86A of GST for blocking input tax credit. Clarifies scope, purpose, and limits of actions under the rule in RM Dairy case.
Kerala High Court directed petitioner to prefer an appeal before GST Tribunal within one month of the constitution of GST Tribunal. Accordingly, writ petition disposed of.
