Liability of a partner for acts of the firm. Every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner.
Demand notice issued by the tax authorities to a Senior Advocate seeking payment of service tax on legal services provided by him to a legal firm was set aside as Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 had been amended by way of substitution by virtue of two consecutive notifications, i.e., Notification No. 18/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016 and Notification No.34/2016-ST dated 06.06.2016
Merely GST refund claim on the basis of averments not suffice unless & until the said claim assesse is corroborated by documentary evidence.
Held that in absence of proper show cause notice u/s. 73 (1) of the JGST Act and proper opportunity of hearing, issuance of the bank attachment notice contained in GST DRC-13 u/s. 79(1)(c) is untenable in law
HC held that merely because one party, has approached before MSME Council, Arbitration application cannot be held to be not maintainable
HC held that that if assessee disputes Section 50 GST interest liability then revenue have to follow specific procedure of Section 73 or 74
Held that action of Designated Committee by first deducting the amount of deposit made by petitioners during enquiry, investigation or audit and, thereafter, extending relief to the petitioners by computing the amount of tax due on the outstanding amount, is not as per the mandate of the Scheme.
Explore the Jharkhand High Court’s ruling in AMI Enterprises vs Union of India on GST transit violation and procedural infirmities.
Roushan Kumar Chouhan Vs Commissioner of State Tax (Jharkhand High Court) Summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the requirement of a proper show cause notice under section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017? [Ref: Roushan Kumar Chouchan vs. Commissioner of State, Jharkhand & Ors in writ petition (T) No. 1849 […]
Held that criminal proceedings cannot continue against the directors against whom there is no direct allegations of mala fide and importantly the company is not made an accused.
