Pursuant to the notice issued under Section-129 of the Act determining the amount to be paid towards the tax and liability, the requisite amount has been paid by the writ-applicant and the conveyance and the goods have been released. It appears that later, a show-cause notice came to be issued under Section 130 of the Act calling upon the writ-applicant to show-cause why the goods and conveyance should not be confiscated.
CIT (Exemptions) Vs Addor Foundation (Gujarat High Court) Effect of Non Passing of order within six months — Non-disposal of an application for registration by granting or refusing registration before expiry of six months as provided u/s 12AA(2) would not result in a demand grant of registration. It was held that deemed registration cannot be […]
Commissioner is empowered to delegate his powers to the Special Commissioner or the Additional Commissioners of State Tax and once the powers are delegated for the purpose of Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the subjective satisfaction, or rather, the reasonable belief should be that of the delegated authority.
In the given case, the respondent assessee has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax invoked power of revision under Section 263 of the Act, 1961 on the ground that without deducting TDS on the export freight, the assessee company had paid export freight to Inter Ocean Shipping and Logistic Services.
PCIT Vs Nageshwar Enterprises (Gujarat High Court) A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, 328 ITR 411, took the view that merely on the basis of admission, the assessee cannot be subjected to additions. The Co-ordinate Bench proceeded to observe that unless and until some […]
The interest paid in respect of the borrowings for acquisition of capital assets is allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act regardless of the fact that the capital assets acquired were not put to use in the concerned financial year in question
Role of the applicant No.1 is coming out in generating of fake and fabricated documents availed or to make other availed and illegal input tax credit causing huge loss to the revenue.
The formation of the opinion by the authority that the goods and the conveyance are liable to be confiscated should reflect intense application of mind. We are saying so because it is not any or every contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules which may be sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the case is one of an intention to evade payment of tax. In short, the action must be held in good faith and should not be a mere pretence.
Pradip Chimanlal Mevada Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) We dispose of this writ application with a direction to the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Mahesana Division, Mahesana to immediately look into the request made by the writ applicant to upload ITC-01 vide representation dated 13th January 2020 at Annexure : ‘N’ to this […]
Shahil Traders Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The learned advocate, appearing for the writ applicant, vehemently submitted that the impugned order of confiscation is without any application of mind and not tanable in the law. Mr. Sheth, the learned advocate, has pointed out something very unusual that the notice for confiscation was issued […]
