Petitioner Sajeev Ezhava, filed public interest litigation before Hon’ble Gujarat High Court contending that the parking fee collected by malls and commercial establishments is illegal and against the basis of exempting them from municipal taxes.
Mehsana District Co-operative Vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court) Subrule (7) of rule 10THD thus lays down the time limit for the Assessing Officer to pass an order under subrule(4) and for the concerned competent authority to pass an appropriate order under subrule(6). We may recall under subrule(4), the Assessing Officer may declare that the option […]
No addition can be made solely on the basis of a retracted statement made during the survey operation, particularly, when proper justification for retraction was also offered.
Where dis allowance was made by revenue under section 14A in respect of interest and administrative expenses, it was made clear that where assessee had its own surplus fund, then no question of any estimation of expenditure under rule 8D would arise. Thus, revenue was not justified in disallowing interest and administrative expenses, when the same was made out of interest free fund.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the notice dated 31-3-2017 issued by the respondent-Income Tax Officer under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), seeking to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for assessment year 2010-11.
Outward transport service used by the manufactures for transportation of finished goods from the place of removal up to the premises of the purchaser is covered within the definition of input service provided in rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
In terms of Article 279A of the Constitution of India, it cannot be said that the recommendations made by the Goods and Services Tax Council are in violation of the Code of Conduct.
Petitioner has challenged second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 140 of the Gujarat goods and service tax act, 2017 under which certain restrictions have been imposed on a dealer for taking tax credit under then the VAT act. counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provision deprives a dealer to his vested right and thus, the statute acts retrospectively and also imposes an unreasonable restriction.
M/s Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Constitutional validity and vires of Second proviso to Section 140(1) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Constitutional validity and vires of Rule 117 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and Form GST Tran-1 issued in relation thereto […]
Remark Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The petitioners are registered dealers under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and are engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of wheat flour, meslin flour, cereal flours etc. The GST authorities had conducted a search at the business premises of […]
