Myteam11 Fantasy Sports Private Limited Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) The petitioners have been served with a show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax, 2017(for short ‘CGST, 2017’) alleging that the petitioner-Company by misclassifying their supply as service instead of actionable claims which are goods and by […]
It is well settled that a failure of natural justice in the authority of first instance cannot be cured by sufficiency of natural justice in the appellate body, else the same would encourage the tendency of the authorities to give a short shrift to the proceedings before them.
Prosecution case against petitioner is that he created fake firms for availment and passing of fake/ ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) to facilitate existing beneficiary firms.
Rajasthan High Court held that reassessment resorted only on account of ‘Change of opinion’ of AO and without there being any fresh tangible evidence for reopening the assessment proceedings is liable to be struck down.
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.
