Since there was an order of the Settlement Commission under section 245D(4) in relation to the assessment year in respect of which assessment was sought to be reopened, AO had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment as once an order had been passed under section 245D by Settlement Commission, assessment for year stood concluded.
It appears that instead of tracing out the real culprit, the respondents are seeking the easy way out by penalising the transporter who prima facie does not appear to have doubted the person who engaged it for transport of the goods as an invoice and e-way bill were produced by him, and recovering the tax, penalty and fine from him.
Naitik Enterprise Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) In terms of sub-section (25) of section 2 of the Customs Act, once the goods are cleared for home consumption, they no longer retain the identity of the imported goods. Under the circumstances, once the goods have been cleared, such goods no longer remain to be […]
Vasu Corporation Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) 1. Mr. Uchit Sheth, learned advocate for the petitioner has, inter alia, submitted that upon the vehicle in question together with the goods being detained under section 129(1) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the GST Act”), the petitioner has […]
Where assessee had claimed deduction under section 80-IB in respect to income of housing development project, the same could not be rejected merely because the land was held by original owner when the housing development project was executed, would not be detrimental to assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80-IB(10).
Kuntal A Parikh Vs Mr. Utkarsh Sharma (Gujarat High Court) Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, supported the impugned order by submitting that admittedly the goods were not accompanied by Part-B of the E-way bills and hence, the second respondent was wholly justified in detaining the conveyance and goods. It was further submitted that as […]
F S Enterprise Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Insofar as the Lorry Receipt issued by the transporter is concerned, carrying the same is not a requirement prescribed under rule 138A(1) of the rules. It was submitted that under the circumstances, in the absence of any statutory provision empowering the respondents to make an […]
Ms. H.M. Industrial Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise (Gujarat High Court) Section 83 of the CGST Act inter alia provides that where during the pendency of any proceedings under sections 67, 73 or 74, the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue, […]
One fails to understand why the concerned officer has at all attended the proceedings, if he had not bothered to come with the files. It is evident that the concerned officer must be availing of leave as well as other benefits for the purpose of coming from Bhavnagar to Ahmedabad. However, in absence of the files, the entire purpose of coming to the High Court is totally frustrated.
Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah C/O. Meena Agency Ltd. Vs ACIT (Gujarat High Court) It is the officer who records the reasons who has to issue the notice under section 148(1) of the Act whereas in the present case the reasons have been recorded by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas the notice under section 148(1) of the […]
