Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Madras High Court

Reopening could not have been done in absence of new facts coming to knowledge subsequent to original assessment proceedings

October 19, 2021 4473 Views 0 comment Print

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Conclusion: In present case, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court provided relief to the Petitioner observing that in the absence of new facts coming to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer subsequent to the original assessment proceedings, the reopening could not […]

SEZ entitled to refund under GST

October 14, 2021 7005 Views 0 comment Print

Section 54 of the CGST Act to ‘any person’ and would include the SEZ as well and accordingly, it shall be entitled to claim the refund of erroneously remitted tax.

Reason for blocking of Credit under Rule 86A must be communicated to taxpayer

October 11, 2021 2808 Views 0 comment Print

HEC India LLP Vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Audit-II (Madras High Court) GST Authority needs to communicate reasons for blocking ITC of the taxpayer Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that the GST Authority necessarily needs to communicate reasons to the taxpayer if the taxpayer’s Input Tax Credit (ITC) is blocked. In the […]

GST Registration Cancellation not valid if SCN not issued in Prescribed Template

October 9, 2021 6303 Views 0 comment Print

Suresh Trading Corporation Vs The Asst. Commissioner (Circle) of SGST (Madras High Court)  Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated October 10, 2019 in which the GST certificate of the Petitioner was cancelled. However, it is to be noted that SCN which preceded the same was not been issued in the prescribed template […]

Requirements of issue of FORM GST DRC-01 & DRC-01A is not a mere Procedural Requirement

October 3, 2021 50943 Views 0 comment Print

A careful perusal of Section 73 of the CG&ST Act in conjunction with Rule 142 makes it clear that non adherence to Rule 142 had caused prejudice to the writ petitioner qua impugned order and therefore it is a rule which necessarily needs to be adhered to,if prejudice is to be eliminated in the case on hand. In other words, it is not a mere procedural requirement but on the facts and circumstances of this case, it becomes clear that it tantamount to trampling the rights of writ petitioner.

Entertainment Tax leviable on payment for Admission to Live Concert of Thiru Yanni

October 3, 2021 1458 Views 0 comment Print

Black and White Media India Vs Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Madras High Court) It is stated that ‘amusement’ means any amusement, for which the persons are required to make payment for admission to any amusement arcade or amusement park or theme park or the like by whatever name called. Thus, whether it […]

Department cannot decline to accept Finding of Commissioner (A) without challenging the same

October 2, 2021 741 Views 0 comment Print

Rocky Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Joint Commissioner of GST & CE (In situ) (Madras High Court) The larger issue agitated by the petitioner relates to its entitlement for refund on the ground that excess tax has been paid by it, there are two issues that arise for separate determination. The first relates to whether there […]

All Shares enjoy long term capital gain benefit on transfer after 12 months

September 28, 2021 10452 Views 0 comment Print

All shares whether listed or unlisted have enjoyed the benefit of shorter period of holding and even any investment in shares of private limited companies enjoyed long-term capital gains on its transfer after twelve months.

Importance of appellate remedy, at no circumstances, be undermined: HC

September 27, 2021 663 Views 0 comment Print

First Appellate Authority under TNVAT Act cannot travel beyond subject matter of assessment – Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd. Vs Appellate Joint Commissioner (CT) (Madras High Court)

Reopening after 4 Years in absence of failure of Assessee to disclose fully & truly all materials was invalid

September 26, 2021 1017 Views 0 comment Print

CIT Vs John Ettimootil Samuel (Madras High Court) The Tribunal, in our view, rightly took note of the fact that the reopening of the assessment was after four years and there was no tangible material to establish that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all materials, which are required for the assessment at […]

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
February 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728