Respondent was required to consider as to merely because the notified party in the commercial invoice contains an address in Chennai, can the transaction be suspected to be one for sale within the State of Tamil Nadu. In fact, when the Detention Notice was issued on suspicion, there was no tangible material available with the officer to suspect that the imported goods were intended for sale in Tamil Nadu.
Since the parties in these Writ Petitions are one and the same and the relief sought herein are inter-connected, all these Writ Petitions were taken together and disposed of by this common order.
This Court finds that when the petitioner had agreed to comply with the payment of disputed tax at the rate of Rs. 50 lakhs per month, they are bound to comply with such an undertaking. Now arguing before this Court pleading their financial incapacity or requesting this Court to examine the merits of the assessment is unsustainable, as this Court finds that there is no error in the impugned order.
Probably, the case study can be a reason for issuing a revision notice, but that cannot be the sole basis for completing the assessment. Repeatedly, Courts have held that electricity current consumption charges cannot be a basis for revision of turnover.
Gopalratnam Santha Mosur Vs ITO (Madras High Court) The petitioner was the co-owner of the immovable property situated in Tamil Nadu and she had sold the property and paid the entire capital gain tax applicable in respect of the transaction. The petitioner thereafter claimed 50% of the capital gains tax as rebate under Indo-Canadian DTAA. […]
M/s. Jaap Auto Distributors Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) A Writ Court cannot make a fact finding exercise to ascertain, which would be an appropriate entry under which the goods are to be classified. In fact, under the normal course in respect of classification disputes, the High Court cannot entertain an appeal […]
Those who are not PAN holders, while applying for PAN, they are required to give Aadhaar number. This is the stipulation of sub-section (1) of Section 139AA, which we have already upheld.
Detailed investigations carried out by the assessing officer establish the position that the contributors to share capital were persons of insignificant means and their credit worthiness to have made the contributions has not been established.
Heard Mr.P. Rajkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Under the new tax regime, GST (comprising CGST, SGST and IGST) on works contracts for Government work was intially notified at 18 percent. This had resulted in representations from contractors of ongoing works for compensation by procuring entity for increased tax liability over and above the contracted value of work.
