Petitioners sought for an adjournment requesting relevant papers to examine the legality of the personal hearing notice. Respondent No.3 furnished documents most of which were handwritten and illegible.
Absence of adherence to procedure laid down in Section 144B of Income Tax Act render the assessment order patently illegal: Bombay HC in Teerth Developers And Teerth Realties JV (AOP) Vs Additional/ Joint/Deputy/ ACIT/ ITO
Bombay High Court held that rejection of application for waiver of interest under section 234C without addressing the submissions highlighted by the petitioner. Accordingly, waiver application remitted back for denovo consideration.
Bombay High Court quashes MVAT appeal dismissal and directs decision based on merits, citing statutory mandate under Section 26 of the Maharashtra VAT Act.
Bombay High Court held that the system-generated provisional acknowledgement of the appeal shows that requisite pre-deposit has been made, thus dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with necessary pre-deposit required in Section 107(6) of the CGST Act not justified.
Bombay HC rules that limitation for filing appeal under MGST Act begins from the email communication date of the assessment order, April 20, 2019.
The High Court does not, therefore, act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal to correct errors of fact and does not, by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226, trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief.
The respondents issued a show cause notice u/s. 28 and 124 of the Customs Act alleging a shortage of stock of diamonds imported after taking into account the exports effected, resulting evasion in customs duty to substantial extent.
Bombay High Court held that interest on delayed refund is payable as per section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act) and the period for grant of interest would begin on expiry of 60 days from the date of the shipping bill.
Since 1986 to 1997, Petitioner acquired shares, in tranches, of Respondent No.4-Company. The Petitioner subsequently sold some of these shares. In April 2007, the shares of Rs.10/- each of Respondent No.4-Company were split into shares of Rs.5/- each.
