M/s M.K. Enterprises v. State of U.P. & 3 Others (Allahabad High Court) Assessee was not given any opportunity to show cause or give reply to the allegation on which goods had been seized on account of absence of Transit Declaration Form (TDF), it was held that as the petitioner had no notice or opportunity […]
Manu International Vs. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) Penalty should not be imposed where the assessee is unable to file the GST returns and pay the taxes for technical issues relating to migration. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm under the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. On the enforcement of the GST, it applied […]
Natthani Infrastructures Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has made an application on 05.04.2018 before the respondent authorities for reimbursement of additional Goods and Services Tax (GST) liability on civil contract and work order issued prior to implementation of Goods and Services Tax Act, […]
When such extraction of toddy is carried on from the trees belonging to the members of the Society, it is definitely an agricultural produce grown by its members. Vending of such produce grown by its members even under a regulatory regime would be marketing of an agricultural produce.
M A Zahid Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court) In this case First and foremost the petitioner is not accused of committing any non-bailable offence so as to invoke the jurisdiction under section 438 of Cr.P.C. Secondly, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is also without any basis. As could be seen from the above Rules, […]
The petitioner has alleged in the petition that despite making several efforts on the last date for filing of the application, the electronic system of the respondent no.2 did not respond, as a result of which the petitioner is likely to suffer loss of the credit that it is entitled to by passage of time.
Principal CIT Vs Ms Blb Cables And Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) Assessee has incurred losses from the off market commodity transactions and the AO held such loss as bogus and inadmissible in the eyes of the law. The same loss was also confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). However we find that all the […]
M/s. Modern Traders Vs. State Of U P And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court) The High Court Held that As e-way bill was produced on the same day of the interception of goods along with documents indicating payment of IGST but before seizure order is passed, no justification for passing orders of seizure of goods/vehicle […]
Principal CIT Vs Manzil Dineshkumar Shah (Gujarat High Court) It is well settled that even in case where the original assessment is made without scrutiny, the requirement of the Assessing Officer forming the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, would apply. Reference in this respect can be made of the judgment in […]
It is not disputed that section 40(a)(ia), Second proviso is for the benefit of the assessee and when a provision has been made in fiscal statute for benefit of assessee, in the absence of any express provision or a provision which by necessary implication gives a different impression, such provision which is beneficial to the assessee must be read and given effect to retroactively.
