Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and directed acceptance of personal bond instead of bank guarantee, as condition for stay of assessment order, pending disposal of appeal in VAT demand matter.
Madras High Court held that Government Order No. 339/Public (Law Officers) fixing fees for the law officers is extremely irrational. Government Orders determining a ceiling as fees for a professional cannot be accepted by any court of law.
Madras High Court held that finalization of assessment without granting of personal hearing is against the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed.
While GST Department may reverse credit in the hands of purchaser, this has to be a protective move, to be reversed and credit restored if liability is made good by supplier. Thus, substantive liability falls on supplier and protective liability upon purchaser.
Assessee had submitted the C and F Declaration Forms with the respondent after passing of the impugned assessment orders, assessee was directed to file a fresh application under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, seeking for rectification of the impugned assessment orders, enclosing the C and F Declaration Forms and all other required documents, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of order.
Rakeshbeniyal Vs ITO (Madras High Court) By consent of both the parties, this writ petition has been taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 19.04.2022, passed by the first respondent under Section 148-A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 […]
As seen from the impugned Assessment Order, the show cause notice was issued by the respondents on 13.12.2022 and the impugned Assessment Order has been passed on 22.12.2022, within a short period even though a request was made by the petitioner by his communication dated 16.12.2022 seeking for ten days time to submit a reply to the show cause notice dated 13.12.2022.
The petitioner has applied under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. Admittedly, he has not paid the entire dues as per the scheme, but he has paid a major portion of it, i.e., 94%.
Several opportunities were given to petitioner to respond to notices sent by Assessing Officer so no violation of Principles of natural justice
Madras High Court held that as per provisions of section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017 granting of personal hearing is mandatory where an adverse decision is taken by the AO against the assessee. Non-granting of the same is against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, order liable to be quashed.
