Madras High Court held that passing of order of detention in Form GST MOV-09 beyond time limit stipulated under section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act unjustified. Accordingly, detention held to be invalid.
Madras High Court ruling on A. K. Ahamed & Co. Vs EPFO remands case for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that HRA and conveyance allowances are excluded from PF contributions.
Madras High Court dismisses writ petitions challenging JAO’s jurisdiction in issuing Section 148 notices under IT Act, citing compliance with faceless schemes.
Assessee was registered under GST Act, had its original GSTIN cancelled in September 2018 and was later assigned a new GSTIN in September 2019. Assessee had filed its monthly returns in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B through the common portal.
Assessment and penalty orders issued against assessee was set aside considering pathology reports of assessee as a valid reason for failing to respond to various income tax notices.
Madras High Court, taking into consideration financial crises faced by the petitioner, granted liberty to the petitioner to pay interest amount in ten equal monthly instalments since entire tax (GST) is already paid.
The impugned order was challenged on the premise that neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order of assessment had been served by tendering to assessee or by registered post, instead it was uploaded in the common portal.
The impugned order was issued thereafter on 29.04.2024. Assessee referred to the impugned order and pointed out that the reply was not considered by the proper officer because such reply was filed after four opportunities of personal hearing.
Madras High Court held that as per rule 86A(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 [CGST Rules] blocking of input tax credit available in electronic credit ledger lapses after a period of one year from the date of blocking.
In the matter abovementioned Hon’ble Madras HC denied to grant any relief to the petitioner by holding that ITAT is the ultimate fact finding body and findings of facts of the Tribunal cannot be interfered under Section 260A of IT Act.
