HC held that Demand order passed beyond the period of 7 days from the date of service of notice is contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act
Whether value of seized goods/bundles were valued between Rs. 4500 -5000 per bundle or Rs .20,000/- cannot be determined in a writ proceedings
M. Baskar Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Madras High Court) Petitioner cannot be held guilty for the alleged charge, in view of the fact that his assessment order passed earlier in his official capacity has once again been re-affirmed in the subsequent assessment order passed pursuant to the directions given by this Court in W.P.Nos. […]
Detention order u/s.129(3) of GST Act is passed on eighth day from date of service of notice, whereas time line stipulated under Section 129(3) is that the order ought to be passed within a period of 7 days from the date of service of such notice
HC held that cancellation of GST Registration due to non-filing of returns can be revoked if assessee files pending returns and pays the taxes, fines, interest along with fee due.
Madras High Court held that section 84 of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 provides for the rectification of an error apparent on record and not one which involves discussion, debate or possible multiple opinions.
Madras High Court held that as taxes are the main source of income for the Government to concentrate on the welfare of the people companies/firms/entities which evade payment of tax are liable to be punished under criminal charges with substantial penalties.
Madras High Court held that works contract service other than commercial nature rendered to the Government, Local Bodies, Statutory Authorities etc. is liable to service tax.
Suguna Automobiles Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court) K.A.Parthasarathy, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order has been made under Section 73 of ‘Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017‘ [hereinafter ‘C-GST Act’ for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity]. Notwithstanding very […]
The Hon’ble Madras High Court held that it is settled law that in the case under Section 138 of NI Act Section 139 of NI Act provides that the Court shall presume that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred into Section 138 of NI Act
