Held that, non-supply of documents referred in the ‘reason to believe’ notice along with the notice to the assessee deems the reassessment proceeding and any consequential proceedings illegal and is a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice.
Vikas Bajoria Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) In present case, the petitioner is in custody since 08.11.2022, investigation as against him is complete, the amount of alleged tax evasion has already been deposited with the revenue by the recipient(s). This Court is in respectful agreement with the law laid down in the cases […]
Issue of inter-state/intra-state transaction is Ilegal issue & petitioner cannot be compelled to pay GST on services rendered by it twice.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submitted that there has been violation of mandatory provisions while effecting his arrest and its continuation as contained in the Act of 2017.
The petitioner has submitted that public in general are cheated in the name of Dream 11 game and people become culprit of gambling and betting without having the proper knowledge of law.
I hold that the comparison by the assessing officer between qualitatively different agreements with completely different terms and conditions was not appropriate.
It is clear on the face of the record that the officer did not consider the detailed reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner while passing the impugned orders which are sketchy and non-speaking on the face of it.
High Court held Declaration forms or ‘C’ Forms are required to be issued by the relevant State, which in the present case is State of Rajasthan.
HC held that we are of the opinion that the Officer acted in a reckless illegal manner leading to unwarranted litigation being filed in Court.
Prakash Purohit Vs Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax (Rajasthan High Court) It is not disputed that appeal against cancellation of the GST registration can be filed within three months which can be extended by a further period of 30 days. The petitioner filed the e-appeal on 27.09.2022 but could not submit the hard-copy. The […]
