Textiles stood excluded from purview of ADE Act. It was accordingly concluded by STO that they would become amenable to Orissa sales tax from that date.
CIT Vs Sikhya ‘O’ Anusandhan (Orissa High Court) Court in the first round of litigation accepted the legal position that without there being a valid search warrant authorizing the search in the premises of the Assessee under Section 132 of the Act, the question of initiating proceedings under Section 153A of the Act did not […]
Orissa High Court held that Court does not consider it expedient to go beyond what is stated in Union of India Vrs. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 2 SCC 603 for the purpose of ascertaining quantum of refund in case of zero-rated supplies as prescribed under Rule 89(4) of the GST Rules .
Auroglobal Comtrade Private Limited Vs Chairman, CBDT & Others (Orissa High Court) HC declined to accept challenge to the Reopening notices under Section 148-A(1)(b) of the Act as well as the consequential order under Section 148-A(1)(d) of the Act by holding that the Petitioners/Assessees in those cases would have a full opportunity of urging all […]
Mandatory nature of time limits set out in Section 41(4) of OVAT Act that report must be submitted within 7 days of conclusion of audit visit
Maa Kalika Bhandar and Others Vs Collector and District Magistrate (Orissa High Court) Property was mortgaged in favour of the Bank on 28.06.2016 whereas the Income Tax Authorities had attached the same on 31.12.2015. Hence, the mortgaged transaction in favour of the Bank is void. Main argument stressed is that the properties in both the […]
Kailash Kedia Vs ITO (Orissa High Court) Learned counsel for the Petitioners have also assailed both the notice under Section 148-A(1)(b) of the Act as well as the consequential order under Section 148-A(1)(d) on several grounds including the ground of limitation, not considering the objections filed, not providing a personal hearing, non-application of mind to […]
Section 51 of the OVAT Act read with Rule 55 of the OVAT Rules provides a special mode of recovery of outstanding amount of tax, interest and penalty. Even these provisions do not authorize recovery of outstanding taxes of a Company from the accounts of its individual Directors.
Orissa High Court held that suo moto revisional power passed by the Addl CST lacked jurisdiction and beyond the powers to revise the order of STO and hence liable to be quashed.
CBDT had issued guidelines dated 10th September, 2011 mandating prior approval of the CCIT for scrutiny assessment and in the present case that was not obtained.
