The issue under consideration is whether the freezing of the bank account of the petitioner was undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner (Customs) under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 is justified in law?
M.S. Retail Private Limited Vs Union Of India (Karnataka High Court) It is not in dispute that the show cause notices, the order of cancellation and the order rejecting the application for revocation of cancellation are passed by proper officer. The show cause notice dated 18.03.2020 and the order of cancellation of registration dated 06.06.2020 […]
The issue under consideration is whether deduction u/s 54F can be denied for the reason that assessee had later on let out new property for commercial purpose to run restaurant?
Difficulty in obtaining ‘C’ forms under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in order to avail concessional benefit of tax for purchase of High Speed Diesel from suppliers in other states.
The issue under consideration is whether the issue of notice u/s 147 for re-opening of assessment on the basis of difference in valuation report is justified in law?
Assessee couldn’t demonstrate with cogent evidences that there was business expediency or sufficient cause for such cash payment. Assessee failed to prove that the case was covered in the exception clause as provided under section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD.
Tribunal in a detailed discussion contained in judgment, had rejected the contention of Revenue. Tribunal had taken into account the valuation of the existing machinery used at Daman and the valuation of the written down value of machinery transferred from Aurangabad to come to the conclusion that same did not exceed 20% of the total value of machinery. The entire issue was thus based on factual consideration and on appreciation of evidence on record. Thus, no question of law arose.
Kalpsutra Gujarat Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) HC issued notice to the department to understand from the respondents whether the omission on the part of the third party (Seller) in filing the GSTR-3B for the relevant period would be sufficient to block the Input Tax Credit of the writ applicant. We would also […]
Mukesh Tanwar Vs. State of Haryana (Punjab High court) As discussed above, investigation is still going on and out of total 31 accused, 10 are yet to be arrested and they are openly in league with the petitioner as well as other co-accused, who are in custody, while circulating the misleading information through social media […]
In the present case, the petitioner had made an application for refund under Section 54 of the Act and when the respondent had issued notice to them for rejection of the ineligible goods and services of SGST, CGST and IGST, they have given a detailed reply, objecting to the All these objections were required to be dealt with by the authority, before taking a final call, which is conspicuously absent.
