Delhi High Court held that as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to meet the case that it was not entitled to refund as the services provided by it was as an intermediary. Matter is remanded back to Appellate Authority as the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
The respondent has since revoked the suspension of the petitioner’s registration and the same is active. It is also stated that the respondent has issued a demand notice dated 15.02.2023 under Section 73(5) raising a demand of ₹6,37,916.00/-. The said demand notice also states that in the event the demand is not paid, a Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1) would be issued.
Sakshi Bahl & Anr. Vs. Principal Additional Director General (Delhi High Court) HC held that based on facts and documents summitted it is clear that the petitioners are not taxable persons. The power under Section 83 of the Act, to provisionally attach assets or bank accounts is limited to attaching the bank accounts and assets […]
Delhi High Court held that revised return as well as chartered accountant’s certificate supports the typographical error. Accordingly, OHA directed to determine correct turnover and tax liability thereon.
Delhi High Court held that there is no requirement to file a fresh claim under DVAT 21 as the claim of refund was embedded by the assessee in its return.
Delhi High Court held that denial of refund of accumulated ITC on the ground that information regarding transfer of business and other returns to establish the transfer of stocks and capital goods not submitted is unacceptable.
Delhi High Court held that the re-insurance services were not excluded from the definition of ‘input service’ as defined under Section 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 01.04.2011.
Delhi High Court held that withholding of refund merely because notice has been issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is unjustifiable and bad in law.
Delhi High Court directed the concerned officer to revisit the application preferred under section 197 of the Income Tax Act as the concerned officer simply by-passed the Supreme Court judgement in Engineering Analysis by observing that revenue has preferred a review petition. Such approach of officer is untenable.
Delhi High Court held that the fee earned by the respondent/ assesse (M/s. Fish Poultry and Egg Marketing Committee) from regulating agricultural produce (which includes fish, poultry, and eggs) falls within the scope of Section 10(26AAB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
