The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground that the Petitioner was issued with a notice under Section 148A of the Income Act, 1961 on 20.03.2022 and that the Petitioner has also replied to the same on 25.03.2022, which has also been acknowledged. However, the impugned order has wrongly recorded that the Petitioner has not responded.
Giant Construction Company Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) The petitioner assails the communication dated 21.04.2022 by which the objections raised by the petitioner to the reopening of the assessment were rejected. The petitioner asserts that the impugned communication is in contravention of the amended Section 148-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Upon the insertion […]
Final order in the re-assessment proceedings is yet to be passed. Hence, the writ petition itself was premature and no relief could be granted thereof.
The compensation for medical expenses is a matter of reimbursement and hence once the insurance company has chosen to compensate the victim of road accident for medical expenses, the same cannot be once again claimed under the Motor Vehicles Act
Balaji Traders Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court) The uploading or serving of summary of show cause in Form GST-DRC-01 under Rule 142(1) is not a mere formality, but it is mandated under the Rule, so that, the Assessee would have a chance of getting summary of show cause and to respond the same […]
Quality Mart Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court) One of the ground raised by the petitioner dealer is that under Section 73 (10) of the TNGST Act, 2017 (Act) that the assessing officer should have passed an order within three years period from the due date for furnishing of annual return for the financial […]
SL Lumax Ltd. Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, HC is inclined to set aside the orders impugned herein as well as in the writ petition and are accordingly, set aside. Consequently, the matter is remanded to the assessing officer to decide the decision for reopening […]
Tvl. GK Digital Printing Vs Assistant Commissioner (Circle) (Madras High Court) GST registration cancelled as returns for continuous period of 6 months not filed. Petitioner directed to file all the pending returns (before and after cancellation of registration) and also pay all the pending taxes, interest, fee, fine, etc. Facts- The petitioner has filed the […]
Raghav Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) Facts- The appellant is a manufacturer of synthetic and blended textile yarn made of duty paid raw material viz., polyester staple fiber or polyester viscose staple fibre. According to the appellant, as per the Government schemes, a manufacturer can either export the finished product without […]
No interest and penalty to be imposed if credit is merely availed but not utilised | Section 73 & 74 Interest will be attracted only if wrong/excess ITC availed & utilized
