Bombay High Court held that identify the nature of the goods as to whether they are finished or semi finished based on the entries in the RG-1 register needs reconsideration by the Appellate Tribunal.
Bombay High Court held that Selective investigation of Economic Offence Wing (EOW) betrays the faith of victims. Accordingly, responsible persons for the wrongdoings should not be allowed to escape the process of law.
Facts- Petitioner statedly is a limited company engaged in procuring vehicles from Tata Motors Limited (“TML”) and selling them to dealers within and outside the State of Maharashtra.
Bombay High Court held that since the Commissioner failed to complete the assessment for the relevant years within a period of ten years of issuing the initial notice in Form-H, the notice is quashed.
Original Application filed by the Respondent No.1 as the same could be heard only by the Division Bench and not by the Learned Single Member of the Tribunal. Accordingly, decision of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal revoking deputation of the sales tax officer lacks jurisdiction.
Bombay High Court directed that the Application filed by a Secured creditor under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act should be disposed of by the District Magistrate/ Collector in the State of Maharashtra not later than 30 days.
It is held that while considering the material on record, one view is conclusively taken by AO, it would not be open for the AO to reopen the assessment based on the very same material and take another view.
HC find no substance in AO’s reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in as much as there is no mention of any tangible material that led to his conclusion. The entire process is triggered on a change of opinion as to the calculation of tax payable by the assessee.
Presumption that Petitioner beneficiary of accommodation entries based on statement of third party was disproved. Consequently, onus would be on AO to provide reasons to disbelieve bank statements and supporting documents for reopening the assessment.
whether the contention of Petitioner that Petitioner was unaware of these dates and therefore could not attend the appeal should be accepted.
