Since Central Excise Department had not sanctioned any refund / rebate of the duty paid on the supplies to the EOUs by assessee-company and the refund of TED was sanctioned by the DGFT thus, if DGFT had acted under the different provisions and the refund was sanctioned under those provisions, the proper authority was DGFT who could initiate proceedings against the assessee-company for violation of exemption notification and the Advance Authorization Licence not the Central Excise Department.
Arya Traders Vs. State of Gujarat (Gujarat high court) The present writ petition is filed mainly for seeking release against the goods and vehicle without demanding any security. High Court states that, the goods and the conveyance came to be detained and seized way back on 9th July, 2019. Till this date, the goods and […]
Commissioner ought not to have delegated his powers of provisional attachment of the immovable property under Section 83 to the Assistant Commissioner, therefore, the order of provisional attachment passed by the Assistant Commissioner was hereby quashed and set aside.
Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Gujarat High Court) In the given case, Assessee has filed appeal before ITAT against the order passed by the A.O. u/s 44AD. With respect to that appeal ITAT passed the order and state that “the Assessee is directed to attend the assessment proceedings and justify its claim of […]
Additional income disclosed to the tune of Rs. 12 Crore by assessee during the course of proceedings before the Commission was just and proper and Commission was right in considering the revised offer made by assessee during the course of the proceedings in the nature of spirit of settlement.
When the CBDT circular refers to the amount sought to be evaded, it must be seen and understood in light of the provisions contained in section 276C(1) and in turn must be seen as amount sought to be evaded. 100% of tax sought to be evaded would be the basic compounding fees.
In the given case, petitioner is engaged in the business of trading of building material and other items in wholesale. Petitioner has applied for G.S.T.Number with the G.S.T.Authorities and is granted G.S.T.Number.
As per clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, it was provides that where a proper officer under Central Goods and Services Tax Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under that Act on the same subject matter.
It is ordered that PAN of the applicant shall not be declared inoperative and the applicant would not be in default in any proceedings only for the reason that the permanent account number is not linked with Aadhaar or Aadhaar number is not quoted and the applicant shall not be subjected to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 139AA of the Act till the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. and others in Civil Application No.8588 of 2019 is delivered and available. Rule is made absolute accordingly to the aforesaid extent.
Gujarat High Court allows release of the conveyance confiscated by the GST department under section 130 of the CGST Act upon depositing a sum of Rs.60,795/- by way of fine.
