A careful perusal of Section 73 of the CG&ST Act in conjunction with Rule 142 makes it clear that non adherence to Rule 142 had caused prejudice to the writ petitioner qua impugned order and therefore it is a rule which necessarily needs to be adhered to,if prejudice is to be eliminated in the case on hand. In other words, it is not a mere procedural requirement but on the facts and circumstances of this case, it becomes clear that it tantamount to trampling the rights of writ petitioner.
Black and White Media India Vs Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Madras High Court) It is stated that ‘amusement’ means any amusement, for which the persons are required to make payment for admission to any amusement arcade or amusement park or theme park or the like by whatever name called. Thus, whether it […]
Rocky Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Joint Commissioner of GST & CE (In situ) (Madras High Court) The larger issue agitated by the petitioner relates to its entitlement for refund on the ground that excess tax has been paid by it, there are two issues that arise for separate determination. The first relates to whether there […]
All shares whether listed or unlisted have enjoyed the benefit of shorter period of holding and even any investment in shares of private limited companies enjoyed long-term capital gains on its transfer after twelve months.
First Appellate Authority under TNVAT Act cannot travel beyond subject matter of assessment – Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd. Vs Appellate Joint Commissioner (CT) (Madras High Court)
CIT Vs John Ettimootil Samuel (Madras High Court) The Tribunal, in our view, rightly took note of the fact that the reopening of the assessment was after four years and there was no tangible material to establish that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all materials, which are required for the assessment at […]
Bharat Electronics Limited Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Madras High Court) Section 120A grants only one opportunity to the petitioner to rectify the Form TRAN-1 and there is, in my view, no basis for such restriction. In this case, the last dates for filing of TRAN-1, and seeking revision of the same are […]
In the present case, the error is seen to be inadvertent, constituting a human error. The Revenue does not dispute this either. Moreover, the era of GST is nascent and I am of the view that a rigid view should not be taken in procedural matters such as the present one.
R.Shanmugam Pillai & Sons Vs Designated Committee (Madras High Court) No denial of SVLDRS benefit by treating assessee under arrears category on basis of numbering of appeal and pending adjudication before CESTAT Conclusion: Even though assessee filed an appeal on 10 days prior to the cut off date before the CESTAT, therefore, on 30.06.2019, in […]
Vinayaga Agencies Vs Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Madras High Court) Hon’ble High Court held that the authority does not have the jurisdiction to reverse the input tax credit already availed by the assessee on the ground that the seller has not paid tax. In this case the petitioner was dealer in lubricants, purchasing lubricants from a […]
