Bharat Raj Punj Vs Central Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate (Rajasthan High Court) HC held that Looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence specially the fact that there are serious allegations against the petitioner of wrong availment of input tax credit of more than Rs. 40.53 Crores […]
Braganza Construction (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) The issue under consideration is that Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in holding that the said amount of Rs.80 lakhs is deemed to be unexplained expenditure under proviso, to section 69C, of the IT Act, without […]
Baiju A. A. Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) (i) the assessments in respect of which the period of limitation for re-opening under Section 25 of the KVAT Act was to expire by 31.03.2017 can be re-opened up to 31.03.2018 by virtue of the amendment to the third proviso to Section 25 (1) vide […]
Godavari Commodities Ltd. Vs Union of India (Jharkhand High Court) In the present case, though it is submitted by learned counsel for CGST that since the tax was paid, Section 73 (1) of the Act shall not be attracted in the case of the petitioner, but the fact remains that the tax was not paid […]
Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) In the present case learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, in transition to GST regime there was clerical error made by his client assessee, resulting in claim of short credit on transition. Since it is by result of clerical […]
Alfa Group Vs. The Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) There is no provision under the GST Act which mandates that the goods shall not be sold at prices below the MRP declared thereon. Further, there is nothing in Ext.P2 order that shows that, on account of the alleged wrong classification of the goods […]
High Court held that in the case of deposits made by the petitioner societies with the Co-operative Banks, they would be entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 194A(3)(iii)(v) of the Income Tax Act and, in respect of the deposits made by the petitioner societies with the Treasury, they will not be entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section taxguru.in 194A(3)(iii)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
Godavari Commodities Ltd. Vs Union of India (Jharkhand High Court) In the present case, though it is submitted by learned counsel for CGST that since the tax was paid, Section 73 (1) of the Act shall not be attracted in the case of the petitioner, but the fact remains that the tax was not paid […]
Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court has held that presence of lawyer cannot be allowed at the time of questioning or examination of a person by the officers under the GST provisions. The Court observed that officers under GST law are not police officers and have […]
In a recent case of M/s. Fresh and Honest Cafe LTD. V. The Deputy Commissioner [Ct] and Anr. (Karnataka High Court) , a ruling was stated by Justice S. Sujatha (Karnataka High Court) that stats that any mistake said to have been committed by a learned CA in filing VAT Form 240 will not be seen as an intentional mistake and further not levy section 69(1) as court rule by Karnataka high court.
