During the scrutiny of GST monthly returns for AY 2018-19, it was found that there existed a difference between the ITC available as per GSTR-2A and ITC availed as per GSTR-3B to the tune of Rs.10,22,809/- of IGST.
Madras High Court held that request for simultaneous trial both in PMLA and in predicate offence registered under IPC not accepted since both the offence are distinguishable and not connected with each other.
Return for AY 2002-03 was filed on 30.10.2002 and an intimation under Section 143(1) was issued on 19.12.2003. A Revised return was filed on 23.03.2004 for which notice u/s 143 (2) can be issued up to 31.03.2005. AO issued notice u/s 148 on 09.07.2004.
The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 09.11.2024 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay penalty of Rs.6, 18,656/- as proposed in GST MOV 07 under Section 129(1)A of the CGST Act.
In a recent ruling Madras HC decided the issue in favour of revenue that the essential characteristic of sugarcane in its original form, stands converted after processing, into jaggery and both the commodities are different and distinct from one another.
Reassessment order was set aside and remitted back to Respondent due to insufficient details in the assessment order on employee’s cash transactions.
Madras HC rules bonafide intent essential for purchasers of properties from GST defaulters. Attachment order valid unless intent is proven in court.
Madras High Court held that since concealment of proceeds of crime is an offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA], Enforcement Directorate need not demonstrate where the money eventually went.
Directions are given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court right from Visakato Aureliano Fernandez Vs. State of Goa and others in respect of the strict implementation of the provisions of PoSH Act.
The Madras High Court remanded the case of AKR Academy, challenging the denial of exemption under Section 10(23C) due to an error in filing the income tax return.
