CIT Vs Shriram Ownership Trust (Madras High Court) As per the Deed of Trust and the Supplemental Deed, the trust is created to benefit the members of owner group and the senior leader group of Shriram Group who are identified as beneficiaries as per the scheme laid out in the Trust Deed. The method of […]
Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Office of GST Council And Ors. (Madras High Court) The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to rectify the mistake in its GSTR-1 return, wherein it has, instead of the GST number of the purchaser in Andhra Pradesh, mentioned the GST number of the purchaser in Uttar Pradesh. […]
The constituent temples function under the aegis of the HR&CE Act and the ‘body’ or ‘authority’ as referred to in Section 10(23BBA) would be the HR&CE department only. Moreover, the proviso to Section 10(23BBA) specifically excludes temples and other religious institutions functioning under the management of the ‘body’ or ‘authority’ from the scope of exemption, stating that they fell within the ambit of taxability.
Admittedly, personal hearing has not been granted to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned orders and it is contrary to the provisions of Section 74(5) of the TNGST Act, which mandates that an opportunity of personal hearing shall be granted in all cases where a specific request is received or where the Officer contemplates adverse decision against the assessee.
CIT Vs Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. (Madras High Court) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the proceeds realized by the assessee on sale of Certified Emission Reduction Credit, which the assessee had earned on the Clean Development Mechanisam in its wind energy operations, is a […]
In case of a works contractor who entered in to the contract before the introduction of GST, he is liable to pay tax applicable to the previous VAT regime only but the differential tax liability (GST) has to be borne by the awarder.
Concerning the scope of section 254, ignoring the material already on record on the part of Tribunal was a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Thus, Tribunal had rightly recalled its order and rectified the mistake and it had rightly set aside the additions under Section 68.
Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) Bill of Entry amendment in manual form when ICES portal not supports such amendment: In a case involving erroneous mention of GSTIN in the Bill of Entry, the Madras High Court has allowed manual correction. The Petitioner’s request for amendment of GSTN in Bill of […]
CIT Vs True Value Homes (India) Pvt. Ltd (Madras High Court) In this case Ashok Gupta is the Managing Director and in terms of the Board resolution is entitled to receive commission for services rendered to the company. It is a term of employment on the basis of which he had rendered service. Accordingly, he […]
The present writ petition has been filed on 08.12.2020 with a delay of 1282 days. The entire blame for the delay has been placed at the door step of the tax consultant, who, according to the petitioner had prepared an appeal against the impugned order and, the petitioner believed, would file the same. The petitioner states that it could not follow up the matter with the consultant on account of severe financial losses and infighting between the partners in regard to the company’s management. No evidence whatsoever, has been placed in support of this submission and the delay of 1282 days amounting to nearly three years cannot be condoned on mere ipse dixit. Hence this Writ Petition is dismissed in limine.
