Chhattisgarh High Court held that delay of three years in approaching Court without explaining sufficient cause for the delay is not justifiable. Also held that mere filing of representation is not sufficient cause to explain the delay. Thus, petition dismissed.
It is submitted that the specific request of the petitioner for furnishing the entirety of the statements made as also the seized material, has not been accepted in its entirety and only the portions of statements were made available which has prejudiced the petitioner.
Delhi High Court held that as AO didn’t assume jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, recourse to section 147 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment proceedings justified. Accordingly, appeal by revenue allowed.
Karnataka High Court remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer since non-response to notice issued under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act by the petitioner was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause.
Allahabad High Court quashed a GST registration cancellation order citing lack of valid reasons, violations under Section 29(2), and denial of personal hearing.
Allahabad HC set aside the GST demand and penalty in Party Time Hospitality Vs State of U.P. case, remanding it for fresh hearing in accordance with GST Act.
Madras High Court held that the coinsurance premium and re-insurance commission would not be considered as supply and hence not liable to pay GST. Thus, amount deposited by petitioners are entitled for refund.
The petitioner, aggrieved by the Assessment Order filed an appeal before the Commissioner’s Office and it is submitted that the appeal is presently pending but no effective order has been passed thereon.
These orders arises out of demand notice dated 3/3/2011 issued by respondent no.2 calling upon the Federation to pay an amount of Rs.14,21,145/- and to deposit the same to the credit of respective EPF accounts of the employees of the Federation.
Petitioners sought for an adjournment requesting relevant papers to examine the legality of the personal hearing notice. Respondent No.3 furnished documents most of which were handwritten and illegible.
