HC held that Writ Court should not in exercise of its writ jurisdiction should substitute the findings of an assessing officer in his order with its own.
HC held that Opportunity of hearing to be granted before denying ITC if sufficient documents available to show genuineness of transactions
There should be application of mind by Revenue Department while passing orders, cancelling GST Registration be it physical or auto-generated.
Kajal Dutta Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Calcutta High Court) The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that garnishee proceedings have been initiated by the authorities by way of attachment of the appellant’s bank When the appeal was presented, the mandatory pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax has been complied with by […]
Surojit Das Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Calcutta High Court) The learned Advocate for the appellant would submit that in terms of Section 129(1)9a) of WBGST /CGST Act, the appellant can seek for release of the goods without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either parties. In fact, the learned Single Bench in […]
Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Writ Court should not scrutinise an adjudicating authority’s decision itself, by acting as an appellate authority over such order of the authority and substitute the findings of an authority by reappreciating the evidence and material and more particularly the nature of a case like this.
Assessment year involved for reopening of assessment is assessment year 2016-2017 and appropriate authority for grant of approval in such case are authorities under Section 151(ii) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Where authority while cancelling GST registration solely relied upon statement made by receptionist of building who could not recognise appellant’s photograph, proper course was followed, therefore, matter was to be remanded to original authority for conducting fresh enquiry
The petitioner clients are strictly complying with the rules and regulations of the aforesaid COTP Act 2003 and other applicable statues and rules. They only permit use of tobacco, nicotine and herbal products in the hookahs Since there is no law banning the use of tobacco, nicotine and herbal products in bars and restaurants
Rupahali Sarees Private Limited Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court) Sub-The petition in this case filed to challenge inaction on part of CIT (Appeals) in deciding the appeal against order u/s 263 which was filed on 27-1-2020 even though almost 3 years had passed. Petitioner submits that in spite of repeated remainders though almost […]
