Kerala HC rules minor tax payment shortfalls under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme can be remedied, ensuring benefits aren’t denied for procedural errors.
Kerala HC examines GST credit mismatch and procedural errors in ITC utilization under CGST and SGST, highlighting no revenue loss in Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex case.
Kerala High Court held that lessee is liable to deduct TDS u/s. 194-I of the Income Tax Act, however, there is a dispute for ownership of the property. Then, in such case lessee is directed to deduct TDS and deposit under his TAN as unclaimed challan.
Notably, the original authority recorded that it is evident that the details provided at the time of migration from the registration under the VAT to GST were false and the registration of the petitioner is therefore liable to be cancelled.
Kerala HC ruled that GST appeal limitation starts when orders are uploaded on the GST portal. Appeals filed manually must be accepted in transition cases.
Kerala High Court held that the import duty paid is liable to be refunded since the goods were never cleared for home consumption but were re-exported. Thus, customs department cannot retain the amount for the goods which were never cleared for home consumption.
The petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved by the fact that the amounts due under the orders of assessment are being sought to be recovered by attaching the bank accounts maintained by the petitioner with the 5th respondent bank.
Held that the Income Tax Department is permitted to withdraw from the bank accounts of the Company/petitioners a total sum of Rs.6,42,07,469/- towards 20% of the amount directed to be paid as a condition for stay by the First Appellate Authority in order.
The First Appellate authority further directed the assessing authority to reopen the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2010-11 and from 2012-13 onwards to disallow the set off of the claim of unabsorbed depreciation computed from 1998-99 onwards.
The First Appellate Authority, therefore, allowed the appeal of the appellant/assessee by relying on the remand report and finding that the consequential order passed by the Assessing Authority could not be legally sustained.
