The issue under consideration is whether the respondent was justified in directing the petitioner to reverse the input tax credit availed on capital goods in excess of 4% vide the impugned order?
The Estate Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court) In the given case the appellant is a partnership firm which is engaged in the business of real estate development, construction and sale of flats under the name and style of ‘The Estate’. The appellant filed its original return of income declaring its total income of Rs. 95,04,431/- […]
we are inclined to pass an interim order for the release of the goods and the vehicles. We direct the writ applicant to deposit an amount of Rs.50,40,972/ towards the tax with the respondent no.2 and the balance amount of Rs.50,40,972/ towards the penalty shall be in the form of a bank guarantee of any nationalized bank. On deposit of the requisite amount and the bank guarantee, the authority concerned shall release the goods and the vehicles forthwith.
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs Union Of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) In the present case, respondent no.3 was satisfied while granting relaxation that the establishment may be eligible for granting exemption by the appropriate authority and thus the relaxation order was issued at that point in time in the year 1988. However, it […]
Serajuddin and Co. Vs Union of India (Orissa High Court) A perusal of sub-section 4 of the Section 75 of CGST Act 2017 makes it clear that whenever an assessee, chargeable with tax and penalty makes a request in writing for opportunity of hearing, such an opportunity should be granted to him. Here, admittedly though […]
Mono Steel (India) Ltd Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The plain reading of the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 17th January, 2019 would indicate that the attachment of the bank accounts was ordered to be released subject to the writ applicant maintaining an amount of Rs.4 Crore in […]
CIT Vs Endeka Ceramics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) Admittedly in the instant case, the industrial undertaking of the appellant-assessee is not located in the Industrial Backward District, which has been mentioned in the Notification issued by the Central Government. It is pertinent to note here that the first Notification was issued by the […]
Where the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act had already commenced and during the pendency, the company gets dissolved, the directors and the other accused cannot escape by citing its dissolution. What is dissolved is only the company, not the personal penal liability of the accused covered under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Since Central Excise Department had not sanctioned any refund / rebate of the duty paid on the supplies to the EOUs by assessee-company and the refund of TED was sanctioned by the DGFT thus, if DGFT had acted under the different provisions and the refund was sanctioned under those provisions, the proper authority was DGFT who could initiate proceedings against the assessee-company for violation of exemption notification and the Advance Authorization Licence not the Central Excise Department.
Arya Traders Vs. State of Gujarat (Gujarat high court) The present writ petition is filed mainly for seeking release against the goods and vehicle without demanding any security. High Court states that, the goods and the conveyance came to be detained and seized way back on 9th July, 2019. Till this date, the goods and […]
