Madras High Court held that complaint against petitioner presuming culpability on his part for failing to pay the tax is not a base for the criminal case.
Madras High Court, in the case of revocation of Input Tax Credit, directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority by way of statutory appeals within a period of three weeks
Madras High Court directed to deal with the matter of disallowance of ITC on account of mismatch between returns filed by the petitioners and returns filed by purchasing/ selling third party dealers as per Circular No. 5 of 2021 dated 24.02.2021
Errors committed are clearly inadvertent and, rectification would, in fact, enable proper reporting of turnover and input tax credit to enable claims to be made in an appropriate fashion by petitioner and connected assessees.
Madras High Court held that section 125 is a residuary provision and as there are three specific non-compliances qua statutory requirements, penalty u/s. 125 of Rs. 25,000 each can be invoked for such non-compliances.
Admittedly, if a search is conducted by applying Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, there should be a specific authorization. In the instant case, admittedly, there is no warrant authorization to conduct search as per Section 132 of the Income Tax Act on the petitioner.
Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and directed acceptance of personal bond instead of bank guarantee, as condition for stay of assessment order, pending disposal of appeal in VAT demand matter.
Madras High Court held that Government Order No. 339/Public (Law Officers) fixing fees for the law officers is extremely irrational. Government Orders determining a ceiling as fees for a professional cannot be accepted by any court of law.
Madras High Court held that finalization of assessment without granting of personal hearing is against the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed.
While GST Department may reverse credit in the hands of purchaser, this has to be a protective move, to be reversed and credit restored if liability is made good by supplier. Thus, substantive liability falls on supplier and protective liability upon purchaser.
