After lapse of 10 years second impugned notice dated 30th October, 2017 was issued to the Petitioner asking him to appear for hearing. The Petitioner filed an application dated 9th November, 2017 before the authority expressing its inability to collect documents after such a long lapse of time.
It was wrongly noted that the Assessee has not filed any return of income, when in fact Assessee had filed its return. It was further wrongly noted that the Assessee has not preferred appeal against the assessment order when in fact the Petitioner had filed the aforementioned appeal.
Sri Laxmi Narayan Agency Vs ITO (Orissa High Court) On writ the assessee contended that the documents on the basis of which the Assessing Officer had formed the reason to believe that income had escaped assessment were not supplied to the assessee, and that the request for opportunity of cross-examination of the persons on the […]
Orissa High Court held that State of Odisha was deprived of recovering 2/3rd of tax due by virtue of interim order of the Supreme Court of India, accordingly, petitioner is required to compensate the State of Odisha by making payment towards interest in the interest of justice and equity.
Light & Electronics Vs Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal (Orissa High Court) The reasons put forth in the application for condonation of delay before the Tribunal was that the Lawyer handling the case had suffered from serious illness and ultimately died on 6th August, 2012. Papers had been entrusted to such Advocate to file the appeal […]
The main issue involved in such matters is that the difficulty faced by the contractors due to change in the regime regarding works contract under GST. The grievance of the Petitioner is that in view of the introduction of the GST, Petitioner is required to pay tax which was not envisaged while entering into the agreement.
Explanation about illness of counsel is not supported by medical certificate. Consequently, Court is not inclined to condone delay in filing revision case
despite remedy of an Appeal under Section 78 of the OVAT Act being available to the Department against the order of the Appellate Authority in favour of the Assessee, the Commissioner could have exercised suo motu revisional power under Section 79(1) of the OVAT Act
HC held that tax, interest, penalty, fine, and fees due need to be paid for the revocation of cancellation of GST Registration by assessee.
Orissa High Court held that cancellation of last pay certificate without clear and unambiguous reasons and not based on any evidence is liable to be quashed.
