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 […]
CIT Vs Kishan House Builders Association (Karnataka High Court) The issue under consideration is whether the sale of land which is held as investment is considered as capital gains or business income? High Court states that, from perusal of the entries it is evident that the assessee has not conducted any other activity other than […]
Shahil Traders Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The learned advocate, appearing for the writ applicant, vehemently submitted that the impugned order of confiscation is without any application of mind and not tanable in the law. Mr. Sheth, the learned advocate, has pointed out something very unusual that the notice for confiscation was issued […]
The issue under consideration is whether the re-opening of assessment is justified if it is based on the similar issues and evidences which have been already considered in original assessment?
K.J. Mathew Vs State of kerala (High Court of Kerala) This Court is of the view that there is no necessity for this Court to adjudicate the abovesaid contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the merits of the matter. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner has not so far responded […]
In the given case the relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition is for issuance of a writ to the respondents granting permission to the petitioner to submit TRAN-1 form electronically by opening electronic portal or in the alternative allow the petitioner to tender the form manually and thereafter the petitioner’s claim be assessed for input tax credit in accordance with law
It was submitted that therefore, the first proviso to section 148 of the Act would be attracted and the assumption of jurisdiction on the part of the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act is invalid.
Bombay High Court has held that sale made by transfer of documents while goods are in bonded warehouse would not qualify as exempt under Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, relating to high sea sales. Observing that concept of crossing the customs frontiers of India is distinct from customs barriers of India, the High Court termed such sale as local sale.
Since offences pertaining to the non-disclosure of the documents which were required under Indian Accounting Standards (IndAS) alleged against assessee- chartered accountant were serious in nature which involved fraud to the tune of several crores and the offence being an economic one which affected the economy of the nation, assessee was not entitled for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C and Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Power to provisionally attach bank accounts is a drastic power. Considering the consequences that ensue from provisional attachment of bank accounts, the Courts have repeatedly emphasized that this power is not to be routinely exercised. Under Section 83, the legislature has no doubt conferred power on the authorities to provisionally attach bank accounts to safeguard government revenue, but the same is within well-defined ambit. Only upon contingencies provided therein that the power under section 83 can be exercised. This power is to be used in only limited circumstances and it is not an omnibus power.
