In a recent ruling Hon’ble Madras HC considered that there is mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A and petitioner is ready to pay 25 % of the total tax in dispute. HC granted on more opportunity to the petitioner after complying the directions.
Madras HC quashes entry tax orders, directing full compliance with Section 4 of the Entry Tax Act, allowing writ petitions in favor of the Assessee.
Madras High Court sets aside order for recovery of duty drawback due to proof of export proceeds realization and improper address service. Details inside.
Assessee should deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of four (4) weeks for a fresh hearing in matters engaging the discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns.
During the scrutiny of GST monthly returns for AY 2018-19, it was found that there existed a difference between the ITC available as per GSTR-2A and ITC availed as per GSTR-3B to the tune of Rs.10,22,809/- of IGST.
Madras High Court held that request for simultaneous trial both in PMLA and in predicate offence registered under IPC not accepted since both the offence are distinguishable and not connected with each other.
Return for AY 2002-03 was filed on 30.10.2002 and an intimation under Section 143(1) was issued on 19.12.2003. A Revised return was filed on 23.03.2004 for which notice u/s 143 (2) can be issued up to 31.03.2005. AO issued notice u/s 148 on 09.07.2004.
The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 09.11.2024 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay penalty of Rs.6, 18,656/- as proposed in GST MOV 07 under Section 129(1)A of the CGST Act.
In a recent ruling Madras HC decided the issue in favour of revenue that the essential characteristic of sugarcane in its original form, stands converted after processing, into jaggery and both the commodities are different and distinct from one another.
Reassessment order was set aside and remitted back to Respondent due to insufficient details in the assessment order on employee’s cash transactions.
