Notices issued to the respective banks attaching the accounts of the assessee maintained with them was valid as assessee did not file returns on time under Rule 7 of the TNVAT Rules, 2007, or submit complete returns for the assessment years, therefore, the deemed assessment passed under Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act should be considered as the first assessment and the limitation for reopening the Assessment under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 would apply only six years thereafter.
Madras High Court held that initiation of recovery proceedings based on ex-parte order passed without considering the submissions is unjustified. Accordingly, writ allowed and CIT(A) directed to dispose of appeal.
Madras High Court held that work contracts undertaken prior to 11.05.2002 cannot be brought under the purview of the tax net under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Accordingly, order set aside.
Madras High Court quashes GST show cause notice for one-day delay in GSTR-3B filing due to COVID-19. Extension recommended by GST Council considered key.
Madras High Court directs GST authorities to accept appeal challenging penalty after rejecting the claim that penalty alone cannot be contested.
Madras High Court sets aside GST order due to lack of physical service of notice and remands the case, directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed tax.
Madras High Court invalidates tax demand on deceased person if legal heirs are not operating the business. Legal heirs liable only if business continues.
Madras High Court confirms Form ASMT-10 is crucial for discrepancies in return scrutiny under Section 61 of CGST Act, ruling its absence vitiates the process.
Madras High Court held that addition towards difference between purchase value and guideline value without awaiting report of valuation officer, as matter was referred to valuation officer, is clearly unsustainable.
Madras High Court held that matter rightly transferred from jurisdiction of registered office to place of business as search was conducted based on place of business and incriminating material were seized based on place of business.
