The object of Section 80 is to benefit an assessee who approaches the Commissioner for a scheme of instalments. The sole exception to the application of Section 80 is in respect of admitted tax. The language in Section 80 is ‘other than the amount due as per the liability self assessed in any return’.
Madras High Court granted the stay in respect of 80% of the demand, as 20% of the disputed tax, interest and penalty already recovered by the department from the bank account of the petitioner.
When ITC has been wrongly availed and utilized with a revenue impact, that interest liability is attracted. Making it clear that it is only in situations where there is a revenue impact that interest will become chargeable.
Madras High Court directed the Chartered Accountant, who raised several allegations against the then President of the Institute, that if he is confident about the irregularities and has materials on record to establish the allegations, he is at liberty to register a case before the Competent Authority, including the Central Vigilance Commission or the Jurisdictional Police or otherwise.
Madras High Court allowed/ directed petitioner to furnish pending returns as due to health issue GST returns were not filed continuously for period of 3 months which resulted into cancellation of registration.
Madras High Court held that as the petitioner company is wound up, however, intention of petitioner for clearing the pending dues is sincere. Writ petition is allowed permitting the petitioner to pay pending dues in equal installments.
HC court is mystified as to how an direction to de-seal and restore water connection could be incorporated without officer having read the same in first place.
Since the question of whether the transactions in issue constitute works contracts or sales would involve an examination of the contracts as well as various other factual particulars and such an exercise cannot be undertaken in writ jurisdiction.
HC held that orders of assessment suffer from violation of principles of natural justice. Correspondence between parties establishes that petitioner was cooperating with proceedings for assessment.
Mehala Machines India limited Vs ITO (TDS) (Madras High Court) TDS Delay- Offence u/s 276/278- Separate notice u/s 2(35) is not necessary before issuance of SCN to consider Directors as principal officers The Company assessee had deducted TDS but failed to pay within the prescribed time. As the Petitioners (Company & directors) had delayed the […]
