Madras High Court held that issue relating to pre-closure premium was already considered and allowed by the assessing authority. Thus, invocation of revisionary power u/s. 263 for mere disagreement with the view of the assessing authority is unjustified in law.
Madras High Court quashes tax demand order in Diamond Cargo Movers case, allowing the petitioner to file a reply and remit 25% disputed tax.
Madras High Court held that recovery action against the Directors of the company under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Revenue Recovery Act not justified since company is non-existent.
Madras High Court held that since the petitioner has already deposited 75% of the disputed tax, petitioner may be grated one final opportunity of explaining the discrepancies between Form GSTR-01 and GSTR-3B.
The prayers are for writs of declaration to declare Explanation in Sl.No.7 of Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 as ultra vires under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India.
The Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit of Flextronics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. (‘Flextronics SEZ unit’) imported the goods, described by the petitioner as stand-alone parts/components, into India from Huawei, China.
Madras High Court held that notice and order uploaded on GST portal were not responded due to several technical glitches in the GST portal and e-mechanism was new to the assessee. Accordingly, order set aside with direction to pay 25% of disputed tax.
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.
Madras High Court held that sales tax leviable on consideration received on sale of unredeemed articles by the auctioneers under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Further, penalty u/s. 12(3)(a) leviable for non-filing of returns.
Madras High Court held that the entertaining an application for cross-examination of the witnesses, without any reply on merits by a notice in a show cause proceeding, is to be eschewed and should not to be allowed.
