Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Vs Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Whether for the period prior to 01.03.2006, service tax is recoverable on entire interest component collected as equated monthly installments on transactions relating to ‘Financial Leasing Services including equipment leasing and hire-purchase’, in absence of any mechanism to bifurcate the […]
Sabka Vishwas (LDR) Scheme – Statement by Director during enquiry is admission of liability: The Bombay High Court has reiterated that for eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, the quantification need not be on completion of investigation by issuing show-cause notice or the amount that may be determined upon adjudication before the cut-off date.
We direct that until decision is taken on the objection filed by the petitioners by respondent No.2, petitioner No.1 shall maintain a balance of Rs. 5,00,000.00 in the escrow account out of the share belonging to the petitioner No.1. In effect, we lift the provisional attachment in so far as petitioner No. 1’s share in the escrow account is concerned subject to maintaining credit balance of Rs. 5,00,000.00 by petitioner No. 1 out of its share and direct that respondent No.4 would be at liberty to transfer / remit the proportionate amount due to petitioner No. 1 to the account of petitioner No.1 and maintain balance of Rs. 5,00,000.00 till the aforementioned decision is taken.
If it is proved by the applicant accused that his health condition is not good then I do not intend to arrest the applicant accused subject to his cooperation in investigation on following points – i) If the applicant accused is ready to share all the credential of crypto wallet and relevant information. ii) If the applicant accused is ready to deposit Rs.1,25,32,691.00 (Liability of the applicant accused) to the Hon’ble Court. iii) If the applicant accused is ready to submit his property details, bank account, mail credentials.
Where Input Tax Credit (ITC) had been wrongly availed exceeds Rs.5 crores it would amount to a cognizable and non-bailable offense and the offence was punishable with imprisonment for a term, which could extend to five years and with fine under section 132 (1) (i) of the CGST Act.
Haresh S. Bhanushali Vs Union of India and Ors. (Bombay High Court) There is a clear distinction between the conveyance used to transport the seized goods and the action of the importer which will be the subject matter of investigation. Both the issues relate to two different parties. On perusal of the extracts of statements […]
Dilipkumar P. Chheda Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) In so far the present case is concerned, here also the additions have been made primarily on the basis of the statement made by Shri. Nilesh Bharani and also on the basis of certain entries in the telephone diary. However, we find from the materials on record […]
Kiran Gems Private Limited Vs Union of India and Ors. (Bombay High Court) Petitioner submitted that the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has no provision empowering CERA to conduct audit of the petitioner’s records also merits acceptance. Brief perusal of the annexure to the impugned communication reveals that detailed audit of the petitioner’s […]
Bombay High Court in Amrish Rameshchandra Shah v. the Union of India & stayed show cause-cum-demand notice issued to a CA in a Writ Petition challenging service tax demand based on ITR data and issued notice to the Revenue Department.
But the moot question raised in the writ petition is whether a provisional attachment of bank account can be continued beyond the period of one year?
