Jharkhand High Court held that it is mandatory to record reasons for initiation of proceedings under Section 35(7) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act (JVAT Act). Non-recording of the same makes the proceedings untenable in law.
HC directs AO to provide effective cross-examination opportunity in accordance with provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and permit petitioner to cross- examine without in any manner interfering or restricting.
Since the E-way bill had expired an order of detention in Form GST MOV-06 and a notice in Form GST MOV-07 were issued wherein the petitioner company was directed to show cause as to why the proposed tax and penalty to the tune of Rs. 19,61,100/- be not imposed.
Petitioner is neither an employee of HEC, Ltd., nor he is responsible for collection of TDS, on behalf of HEC, from any contractors, employees or others
HC granted interim protection on levy of GST on mining lease / royalty upon the petitioner who is lessee of minor minerals
PCIT Vs Padma Kumar Jain (Jharkhand High Court) Section 263 revision initiated by CIT second time to cancelling non existing original assessment order isn’t tenable: PCIT v. Padma Kumar Jain – [2022] (Jharkhand) A search and seizure operation was conducted by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the business and residential premises of the assessee-individual. After […]
The main plea of the petitioners is that the anticipatory bail of these petitioners stand on a better footing than that of two co-accused who have been admitted on interim bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court who were the Chartered Accountants and against whom there is direct allegation of paying illegal gratification to the principal accused and they were instrumental in getting the accounts of different Income Tax assessees transferred from Kolkata to Ranchi.
Jharkhand High Court held that show cause notice u/s 73(1) on mismatch in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A issued on standard format without strucking off unnecessary particulars or without specifying contraventions is termed as vague.
Jharkhand High Court held that instalments paid under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 is allowed as refund. However, interest on the same is not payable as there was no voluntary payment of tax on self-assessment.
During investigation huge property have been seized which were disproportionate to her known source of income, although, she was housewife and no tax return was filed. It is submitted that the petitioner had several joint bank accounts with her husband Tapas Kumar Dutta, 45 mutual fund investment and number of LIC policies.
