Madras High Court ruling: Best Judgment Assessment annulled if assessee files pending GST returns post-registration restoration. Case analysis of Anand Cini Services Pvt. Ltd.
Explore case of Tvl. Kavin HP Gas Gramin Vitrak vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The petitioner’s belated GSTR-2 claims face challenges due to unnotified forms.
Explore the Madras High Court’s decision to set aside an assessment order in the case of Shopping Zone India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Analysis of the violation of natural justice and its implications.
Explore the Madras High Court’s directive to revive the tax appeal in Palanisamy Jeevanantham Vs PCIT case. Analysis of the order and its implications on assessment proceedings.
Since it was mandatory on the part of the respondents to provide opportunity to assessee for personal hearing and without giving any such opportunity of personal hearing, the impugned order came to be passed, which amounted to violation of provision specified under Section 75(4).
Service of notice for cancellation of GST registration through e-portal only without physical means was not valid as assessee could not open the e- Portal, due to cancellation of their GST registration and the respondent could expect assessee to know of the issuance of show cause notice or any other communications which were sent through e-Portal.
Madras High Court dismisses a writ petition, emphasizing that a show cause notice is not a denial of hearing. Get insights on the case – Lakshmi Jalladianpettai Lakshmanan Vs ITO
Madras High Court directs Revenue Department to refund excess tax as per the original refund order, stating it has no power to re-adjudicate or re-quantify.
Explore the Madras High Court’s decision in East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner, where it allowed a writ petition, highlighting technical issues on the GST portal. The court remanded the matter, emphasizing the need for a fair chance and directing the Revenue Department to address dashboard discrepancies.
Reassessment initiated beyond 4 years was quashed as assessee had disclosed the information with regard to the sale of the agricultural land and all the particulars with regard to sale of agricultural land was disclosed before AO in full extent and there was no failure on the part of assessee with regard to providing material facts and the notice issued under Section 148 and 149 of the Act for re-opening assessment.
