Madras High Court held that commercial tax officer cannot be penalized merely on the ground that the collection target was not reached by him. Accordingly, order imposing penalty is liable to be set aside.
Madras High Court held that order imposing penalty u/s. 122(1)(vii) is set aside and remitted back with a condition to deposit 25% of disputed tax via Electronic Cash Register since petitioner failed to appear.
Madras High Court sets aside GST order, directs tax department to issue circular advising assessees to engage qualified consultants; bank account de-frozen.
Madras High Court didn’t entertain the writ as refund application filed without debiting extent of refund claim amount from Electronic Credit Ledger. Accordingly, writ dismissed as mandatory requirement of filing refund application not complied.
Where there exist conflicting test reports regarding conformity of imported goods to standards, the proper course was to allow the importer to respond to the show cause notice with all supporting documents, and for the authority to decide after affording a hearing whether provisional release under Section 110A could be granted.
Tribunal upheld revision. It was held that once there was an inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass order under Section 263 merely because he had a different opinion in the matter.
Once the death was intimated, the Department ought to have proceeded against the legal heirs rather than the deceased. Since the impugned order was passed against a dead person, it was invalid in law.
Premature issuance of the order nullified the opportunity for the taxpayer to present its defense and documents, which was fundamental to fair adjudication. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the department was directed to re-adjudicate the matter.
Madras High Court held that option of admitted liability inadvertently not changed to disputed liability and hence petitioner was unable to file appeal. Accordingly, liberty is granted to file an appeal after depositing 15% of disputed tax amount.
Madras High Court held that delay of one day in filing of an appeal before appellate authority is condoned since reason for delay appears to be genuine. Accordingly, delay condoned and respondent/ department directed to take appeal on record.
