Chartered Accountant Amit Agarwal seeks bail in OGST Act fraud case involving fake business entities and alleged GST fraud of Rs.319.64 crore.
High Court set aside the retrospective amendment in Industrial Policy Resolution denying GST reimbursement as the Court was not satisfied of the reasons given by the Opposite Parties for discriminating against assessee unit vis-à-vis KPCW which appeared to be identically placed as assessee and nowhere does IPR 2007 state that a cement producing unit that sources raw materials from outside would be ineligible to receive the incentives.
Rajeev Mishra Vs State of Odisha And Another (Orissa High Court) Conclusion: Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, availability of prima facie case against assessee, coupled with the fact that a huge amount of public money had been misappropriated by availing and passing of bogus ITC, assessee was […]
It has been alleged that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. S.R. Enterprises in collusion with others had been managing in showing the receipt of purchase invoices in the name of fake firms without physical receipt of goods and issuing sale invoices without onward physical movement of the goods and thereby has wrongfully availed and passed on bogus Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the strength of those fake invoices in defrauding the State exchequer.
Keshab Automobiles Vs State of Odisha (Orissa High Court) A comparison of the language used in the amended Section 43 (1) of the OVAT Act with its version prior to 1st October, 2015 makes it clear that a new system has been put in place as far as reopening of returns filed as ‘self-assessmen’ is […]
It is said that they have issued fake invoices in the name of eight non-existent and fictitious business entities without physical movement of the goods and both being defacto operators have lodged claim of wrongful utilization of bogus ITC on the strength of fake invoices without physical receipt of the goods.
It should be kept in mind that the offences under Section 132(1)(b)(c)& (i) of the OGST Act are punishable with a maximum punishment of five years Rigorous Imprisonment. Therefore, investigation ought to be completed within 60 days as per Section 167 Cr.P.C. Of course, Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. permits the investigating agency to keep the investigation open. B
Rama Devi Sabat Vs DCIT (Orissa High Court) Contending that the initiation of the reassessment proceedings was based merely on a change of opinion, the present petition has been filed. A perusal of the reasons mentioned above for reopening of the assessment reveals that there was no new material available with department. It is also […]
Reassessment under section 148 was not justified as ‘reason to believe’ that income for the AY in question had escaped assessment was based on a mere ‘change of opinion’.
Smt. Smrutisudha Nayak Vs Union of India (Orissa High Court) Orissa High Court held that assessment proceedings cannot be initiated if no incriminating materials are seized at the time of the search. Smrutisudha Nayak (Petitioner”)filed the petition challenging the initiation of the assessment proceedings under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act). […]
