Reviving of assessee’s case after 18 years, the Opposite Parties had acted unreasonably particularly since assessee could not have reasonably expected that the proceedings against it would be kept alive for these many years without any action being taken and also, assessee could not be expected to preserve its records for these many years and to be able to answer a SCN after 18 years.
High Court had refused to grant anticipatory bail to assessee-journalists who being accused of cheating depositors through Ponzi schemes as assessee had been indicted in an economic offence which was of serious in nature and the larger angle of conspiracy with regard to patronage of political and other persons in growth of such ponzi firms were required to be unearthed, no effective investigation could be made by the police by enlarging assessee on pre-arrest bail, even if he was ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation by remaining on pre-arrest bail.
M/s. Shree Udyog Vs Commissioner of State Tax Odisha (Orissa High Court) The difficulties generally faced by lawyers and litigants in applying for and obtaining certified copies of orders is generally known. Acknowledging this reality, the explanation offered for the delay in furnishing such certified copy ought to have been accepted by the Appellate Authority […]
Since Office Memorandum (OM) only prescribed the manner/procedure of calculation to determine the amount of tax in a particular eventuality in the transitional period of migration to GST Act with effect from 1st July, 2017 consequently, the Court found no merit in assessee’s challenge to quashed the said OM in law.
M/s. Shree Gobind Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and others (Orissa High Court) Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act, 2017 provides Input Tax Credit should be allowed to the recipient only when supplier has discharged the Output Liability through utilization of input tax credit admissible in respect of the said supply or by cash […]
Devi Prasad Tripathy Vs The Principal Commissioner CGST and Central Excise (Orissa High Court) A compliance affidavit has been filed by the Principal Commissioner, GST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Bhubaneswar enclosing the copies of instructions issued on 9th April, 2021 and 15th April, 2021 reiterating, inter alia, that the services provided by an advocate or […]
In that view of the matter, it is clarified that while the question of the Petitioner being entitled to refund will await the final decision of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned SLPs, the Opposite Parties will not require the Petitioners before this Court hereafter to pay IGST on ocean freight until further orders.
High Court expresses its concern that practising advocates should not have to face harassment on account of the Department issuing notices calling upon them to pay service tax/GST when they are exempted from doing so, and in the process also having to prove they are practising advocates.
Utkal Moulders Vs State of Orissa (Orissa High Court) In the considered view of the Court, the legal position, as explained in Hindustan Sugar Mills and others v. State of Rajasthan and others (supra) and the State of Karnataka and another v. Bangalore Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. (supra) supports the case of the Petitioner is […]
Sonam Berlia Vs State of Odisha and others (Orissa High Court) FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT 1. The present petition is by the proprietor of M/s. Arshee Venture which is engaged in trading of iron and scraps and has been assigned with GSTIN number. 2. It is stated that the Petitioner’s […]
