The petitioner states that since no provisional ID was received from GSTN, it proceeded to utilise an ID using random units that, admittedly, has no basis and was defective. Using this ID, business was conducted during the period 01.07.2017 to 21.08.2017 and credit was also earned.
AO was not justified in reopening of assessment after four years as on an independent application of mind and on thorough consideration of material aspects and legal position,there was no failure on the part of assessee.
Works contract for fitting out or implanting of prosthetics into the physiology or the body of the patient for alleviation of pain or for improvement of the life of the patient in the course of medical/surgical procedure could be construed as ‘works contract’ liable for VAT under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
As against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate on a complaint, an appeal will lie only before the High Court, under Section 378 (4) of Cr.PC. In such cases, the complainant has to seek for Special leave under Section 378 (5) of Cr.PC.Since the decision rendered in S. Ganapathy V. N. Senthilvel ((2016) 4 CTC 119) was per- incuriam, the consequence of this judgement which had resulted in orders being passed and which had become final / acted upon by the parties, could never be allowed to be re-opened.
T. Krishnamurthy Vs ITO (Madras High Court) This is a case where details of investment in shares and immovable property were not originally disclosed by the petitioner at the time of filing of the original returns under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the respective assessment years. Therefore, two notices under section 148 […]
Liability of Purchase Tax under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Value-added Tax Act, 2006 was not attracted in case assessee’s turnover was also below Rs. 300 Crores during the year.
International Flavours and Fragrances India Private Limited Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) The issue under consideration is whether the notice issued u/s 147 for re-opening the assessment is justified in law? Petitioner is engaged in manufacture of flavour essences, mixed seasoning powders (dry mix) and formulated perfumery compounds etc. The petitioner started a new manufacturing […]
The issue under consideration that whether the Department was justified in disallowing the refund of claim on the ground that the petitioner was still in business and was adjusting the amount regularly?
As such the Development Commissioner appointed under section 11 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 is neither a proper officer within the meaning of Section 2(34) the Customs Act, 1962 nor a Central Excise Officer for the purpose of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to demand excise duty vide impugned show cause notice.
Since there was total or near total disruption of work due to alleged arrest of the customs officers and therefore, the delay in receiving and processing of transshipment application should not be at the cost of the Qatar Airways and assessee was not liable for demurrages and transshipment charges by Air Port Authority of India
