The respondents are now directed to conduct reassessment proceedings by granting reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of cross-examination in respect of the documents pertaining to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Guna (M.P.).
Lalit Kumar Gandhi Vs State of M.P. (Madhya Pradesh High Court) This is an application made by the applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail during trial. The allegation against the applicant is that he had received a sum of about Rs.6,52,00,000/- from the applicant for supply of pesticides and insecticides and as […]
Carewell Security Services Private Limited Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Conclusion: Employer could not camouflage basic wage as part of allowance so as to avoid deduction and contribution under the EPF Act. Held: Assessee was company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and was engaged in the business of […]
Agrawal Colour Advance Photo System Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Another (Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur) The issue under consideration is whether while providing photography service whether the use of the paper upon which an image is printed using certain consumables and chemicals, being incidental to the provision of service, amount to sale […]
Lakhan Singh Chauhan and Company Vs Union of India and others (Madhya Pradesh HC) In the impugned order, there is no consideration to the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal regarding non-communication of the order to the petitioner and start of period of limitation from the date of communication or knowledge of the order. […]
Simmant Kohli Vs Union Of India (Madhya Pradesh High Court) The Court opined that pending final adjudication whether property is in the name of petitioner are ‘Benami’ property or not, the authorities concerned have passed an order of provisional attachment as a matter of precaution, until the dispute is finally resolved, no interference is warranted. […]
Kabeer Reality Private Limited Vs The Union of India & Others (Madhya Pradesh HC) The petitioner has certainly not paid the GST. It is noteworthy to mention that GSTR-1 is declaration of tax liability and GSTR-3B is evidence of actual payment. The petitioner has stated that GSTR-1 cannot be termed or classified as self assessed […]
Looking to the alleged huge tax evasion by the applicant and the contention of the learned counsel of the respondent and keeping in view that the investigation is going on and apprehensions of applicant tampering with the evidence can not be ruled out. So, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. Hence, the bail application of the applicant is rejected.
Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected the plea that proceedings under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, relating to summons, can only be taken recourse to after decision under Section 73, relating to demand of tax. The High Court in this regard declined to quash the notice for personal hearing.
Assessee-company being a ‘willful defaulter’ could not be represented through the lawyers or Chartered Accountants as the personal hearing was available only to borrower Director and Promoter of the alleged default unit.
