Jharkhand High Court in the case of Aditya Medisales Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand allowed writ application for disapproving recovery notice. Transitional Credit cannot be disallowed just by a summary of Show Cause Notice.
Jharkhand High Court held that initiation of prosecution proceedings under section 276CC of the Income Tax Act in absence of any demand, as demand adjusted against refund, is bad-in-law and liable to be set aside.
Explore the legal case of Fusion Engineering Products vs. Union of India regarding a delay in TDS deposit and the quashing of criminal proceedings. Analysis and insights.
For issuance of notice under section 148A(b), department was duty-bound and was mandatorily required to provide all material information or inquiry conducted along with supporting documents to assessee as per the provisions of Section 148A, therefore, the matter was remitted back to the respondent to supply all the relied-upon documents on the basis of which the notice had been issued and pass the order strictly in accordance with the law as mandated in the provision itself.
Where the law prescribed a manner in which a power had to be exercised, then such power could be exercised only in such a manner. No prior notice was served during personal hearings therefore, alleged personal hearings were in contravention of the Circular as circulars or instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) were legally binding on the department.
Jharkhand High Court held that Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 [JVAT Act] doesn’t have any provision for initiation of re-assessment proceedings against a re-assessment order. In case assessing authority is allowed to initiate repeated re-assessment proceeding merely on dictate of audit party there would be no finality of assessment.
Jharkhand High Court held that interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act has to be charged on the assessed income and not on the returned income of an Assessee.
Jharkhand High Court held that TCS is not to be collected in the transaction of purchase of coal which is used in generation of power. Accordingly, illegal sum collected as TCS is ordered to be refunded back with interest.
Read Jharkhand High Court’s judgment on Kamaladitya Construction’s case challenging a 7-year gap in show cause notice. Is it unreasonable? Find out.
Jharkhand High Court held that the explanation inserted in Rule 89 (4) of CGST Rules, 2017 vide Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 is not clarificatory in nature and thus will have a prospective effect.
