This Court finds that the taxing authorities as well as the appellate authority should not pass orders in a mechanical manner, when it is dealing with the commercial and financial matter, which affects the revenue of the State.
Sumiti Alloys Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P (Allahabad High Court) HC find that the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding of fact which needs no interference by this Court as there was difference in the stock found by the survey team on the premises of the assessee on the basis of which the […]
Statement of a truck driver cannot be the basis for initiating penalty proceedings. Statement of truck driver which has been recorded by officer of department is not corroborated by any proof and said statement cannot be relied upon for initiating penalty proceedings.
Jaiswal Machinery Stores Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax Lko. (Allahabad High Court) It is not in dispute that the Tribunal has reduced the quantum of tax imposed by the assessing authority from Rs.10,34,000/- to Rs.2,82,125/-. From the perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is apparent that finding recorded is contradictory. On the […]
In the instant case, the draft assessment orders in 123 cases, i.e. for 123 assessment years placed before the Approving Authority on 30.12.2017 and 31.12.2017 were approved on 31.12.2017
Sudhan Chandra Basak Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court) This application is filed on basis of some undisputed facts that orders of penalty were passed against applicant under Sections 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c) and 273(b) of Income Tax Act for late filing of return for Assessment Year 1983-84. These orders were challenged by way of three […]
Under U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 The burden to prove the material which was recovered by the various mobile squads was upon the Department and burden could not have been shifted upon the assessee to prove the same. Further, the assessee has denied the transaction having been made by him.
Admittedly for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner a notice as provided for under Rule 142(1A) of the Rules in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A was not issued, which provided for communication of details of any tax, interest and penalties as ascertained by the officer.
HC set aside order passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal remanding the matter to the Assessing officer. Held that, the Tribunal was incorrect in remanding back the matter, when all the material was before it thus, it should have dealt with each of the material and decided the same.
HC held that mere selling of batteries by piece instead by weight does not make seller liable to be penalised under CGST Act, 2017
