M.R. Traders Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) Address shown in the invoice is different from the address shown in the E Way bill etc. is only a clerical mistake and is not a serious mistake which should justify the detention and penalty proceedings. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGEMENT […]
In this case challenge was made to notice issued by superintendent on account of delayed filing of return whereby interest on gross amount was computed under Section 50 of CGST Act, 2017. Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition as petitioner has failed to convince why the writ is Maintainable.
It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that since the petitioners have not paid due tax amounts for the relevant periods and they do not file mandatory returns till day, blocking of E- way bill is made on account of this mandatory provision contained in the above said Rule and unblocking of E-way bill is possible only if the due amounts as envisaged in the above said Rule are remitted and the returns are filed up to date.
Role of the applicant No.1 is coming out in generating of fake and fabricated documents availed or to make other availed and illegal input tax credit causing huge loss to the revenue.
Power to provisionally attach bank accounts is a drastic power. Only upon contingencies provided therein that the power under section 83 can be exercised. It is therefore not possible to accept the submission of the Respondents that even though specified proceedings have been launched against one taxable person, bank account of another taxable person can be provisionally attached merely based on the summons issued under section 70 to him.
Stock Exchange Bombay Vs Varughese P. Danial (Bombay High Court) So far as the prohibitory orders were issued by the Income Tax Department in respect of security deposit of the defaulting card holder is concerned, any amount in excess after meeting it’s liabilities should be handed over to the Income Tax Department. This is so […]
Prospective accused has no right of hearing before registration of FIR and investigation by the police officer or before the Court including the writ Court, therefore, in a writ petition seeking direction for registration of FIR and investigation into a cognizable offence, the prospective accused is neither necessary nor a proper party.
The formation of the opinion by the authority that the goods and the conveyance are liable to be confiscated should reflect intense application of mind. We are saying so because it is not any or every contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules which may be sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the case is one of an intention to evade payment of tax. In short, the action must be held in good faith and should not be a mere pretence.
Pradip Chimanlal Mevada Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) We dispose of this writ application with a direction to the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Mahesana Division, Mahesana to immediately look into the request made by the writ applicant to upload ITC-01 vide representation dated 13th January 2020 at Annexure : ‘N’ to this […]
Shajahan A.M. Vs Assistant State Tax Office (Kerala High Court) After having heard both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the detained goods and vehicles involved in these two cases as per the impugned proceedings shall be immediately released to the petitioner on his […]
