It was submitted that in the absence of any discrepancy in the documents and the goods, it is not permissible for the respondents to confiscate either the vehicle or the goods.
Gokul Agro Resources Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) In the given case the HC have reached to the conclusion that no tax is leviable under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on the ocean freight for the services provided by a person located in a non-taxable territory by way of […]
Considering facts that as per Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, interest is payable on the delayed payment of tax and that as per the interest statement filed along with the impugned letter, dated 07.02.2020, there was delay in filing GSTR-3B and hence, interest on ‘cash set off’ and ‘ITC set off’ has been calculated and payment thereof has been asked for, recovery of interest against the petitioner, insofar it relates to `I.T.C. set off, shall remain stayed.
Myres Tyre Supply (India) Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court) In addition to writ with High Court appellant had also moved an application for refund of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed under the TNVAT Act and this application was without prejudice to their rights under section 140(3) of the TNGST Act. The […]
Chandimata Iron Vs State of Tripura (Tripura High Court) Since the order under challenge in this petition is appealable, we permit the petitioner to pursue such appeal for which, we are informed limitation period has yet not expired. However, considering the facts of the case, the goods of the petitioner which are in the nature […]
The issue under consideration is that, when two views are possible and A.O. adopt one of the view and passed his order accordingly. But that view is not acceptable by PCIT, in such case can PCIT adopt its one of the other views and call the order of A.O. the erroneous?
This Court does not find any substance in the arguments of the petitioner, when they say that the investigation and the proceedings now initiated is one, which hit by Section 6(2)(1)(b) of the CGST Act of 2017. What has also to be appreciated is the fact that there is a clear distinction between a proceeding drawn for the demand of tax evaded by the petitioner-establishment and the investigation be conducted by the Department of the DG, GST Intelligence Wings in respect of an offence committed by an establishment by way of using bogus and fake invoices and illegally availing ITCs, which the petitioner-establishment otherwise was ineligible.
It appears that petitioner Satnarain had rendered his professional services and assistance for the purpose of incorporation of the firms. At this stage, it cannot be said that he had joined hands with Rajesh Mittal or was beneficiary of any amount other than his professinal fee.
Lakhan Singh Chauhan and Company Vs Union of India and others (Madhya Pradesh HC) In the impugned order, there is no consideration to the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal regarding non-communication of the order to the petitioner and start of period of limitation from the date of communication or knowledge of the order. […]
Rajesh and another Vs State of Haryana (Punjab and Haryana High Court) The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of ASI Vinod Kumar wherein it has been alleged that on 4.6.2019 when he along with other police officials was present near grain market bridge for the purpose of patrolling, then a secret information […]
