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 […]
Jamna Devi Vs ITO (Rajasthan High Court) The matter comes up for consideration of the application (CMCC No.97/2022) preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on behalf of the appellant-assessee with a prayer to condone the delay of 1060 days caused in filing the present income tax appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee has […]
A scheme has been formulated whereunder issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act has to be through automated allocation and in a faceless manner, whereas in the instant case, the aforesaid procedure has not been followed, rather the notice has been issued by a particular person and not in a face less manner.
Pooja Agarwal Vs CIT (Rajasthan High Court) When there is a direction issued by the High Court, the Tribunal is expected to follow the same in pith and substance. The direction of the High Court in remanding the matter to the Tribunal was to verify the distance of the land from the outskirts of the […]
A conjoint reading of sub Section (1) (b) & (2) of Section 50 of Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 makes it abundantly clear that it is wide enough to authorize and empower Director or Additional Director to issue a summons to a person.
CIT TDS Vs Mewar Hospital Pvt Ltd (Rajasthan High Court) Before proceeding with the matter, it will not be out of place to mention that the assessee is running a hospital within State of Rajasthan and they have entered agreement with three different doctors. The question which came up for our consideration is whether benefit […]
The respondents have submitted a reply wherein, the averments made by the petitioner are controverted on the ground that the application for cancellation of registration was made in FORM GST REG-29 and not in FORM GST REG-16 and thus, the system did not link the GSTIN of Shri Abdul Hameed Bhati (the deceased proprietor of the firm) to the GSTIN of the petitioner herein.
