Anybody carrying on the business of Digital Marketing with cash transactions both on the aspect of receipts and payments in cash below 5% of the turnover, which was below Rs.5 Crores as per the proviso to Section 44 AB (a), the said assessee was not required to file an audit report and they were exempted.
Demanding of tax which was over three times the tax proposed in the original show cause notice (SCN) was not justifies as the order was passed in complete violation of natural justice and beyond the scope of the SCN.
The Madras High Court remits a Rs.214 crore tax case, giving a petitioner one last opportunity to submit documents, citing financial hardship.
Madras High Court held that recovery of availed duty drawback beyond period of three years from the date of respective shipment is barred by limitation. Accordingly, it is directed to reconsider the matter after affording personal hearing as order was passed in violation of natural justice.
Madras High Court has instructed NCLT to file detailed counter as NCLT has proceeded to appoint the Interim Resolution Professional [IRP] different from that suggested by Corporate Debtor [CD].
Madras High Court held that issuance of show cause notice under Customs Act by Additional Director General of Central Excise Intelligence based on notification which does not specify any territorial jurisdiction is not sustainable in law.
Madras High Court held that the provisional attachment order passed under Section 83 of the CGST Act could not be made a basis to challenge any action that may be taken in future or any order passed towards recovery of loan under the SARFAESI Act.
An assessment order demanding reversal of ITC was passed with a complete lack of application of mind and failure to consider the taxpayer’s detailed submissions, therefore, the impugned order was set aside and remanded back to authorities for fresh consideration.
Madras High Court invalidates GST Notification No. 56/2023 impacting limitation periods. The court relied on a prior judgment and a Supreme Court order.
Madras High Court ruled that mere possession of proceeds of crime is enough to invoke PMLA. It dismissed a discharge petition, stating the act’s scope is not limited to projecting the money as untainted.
