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.
Geeta Agarwal Wife Of Shri Navratan Agarwal Vs ITO (Rajasthan High Court) It is contended that as in the present case, the income, which is alleged to have escaped assessment, is far below Rs.50 lacs i.e., Rs.8 lacs, the bar under clause (a), sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act would come into play […]
CIT Vs State Bank of Bikaner (Rajasthan High Court) On perusal of Sec.36(1)(va) and Sec.43(B)(b) and analyzing the judgements rendered, in our view as well, it is clear that the legislature brought in the statute Section 43(B)(b) to curb the of such tax payers who did not discharge their statutory liability of payment of dues, as […]
CIT, Udaipur Vs Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited (Rajasthan High Court) While completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee had deposited payment of Rs.14,60,412/- in the PF fund and Rs.973/- in the ESI fund with delay that is the said payments […]
Poonamchand Saran Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) It is not disputed that appeal against cancellation of the GST registration can be filed within thirty days which can be extended by a further period of 30 days. The petitioner Poonamchand Saran filed the e-appeal in time but could not submit the hard-copy. On the […]
Rajasthan High Court held rejected the writ petition filed challenging leviability of GST on royalty as matter already decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court
Assessee to satisfy the authority by submitting Crypto currency ledger to verify information as was submitted by him before AO in proceedings under Section 148A
No notice whatsoever was issued to the legal representative/s of the assessee before undertaking the reassessment proceedings. Thus, the impugned re-assessment and the assessment order having been passed against the dead assessee, is invalid and the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Held that applicant, subjected to any enquiry or investigation or audit, is not eligible to make a declaration under ‘Voluntary Disclosure’ under SVLDRS Scheme
Sonjoli Construction Co. Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) Petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled to apply under the SVLDR Scheme and he filed the timely application and deposited the due tax amount under the said Scheme. However, application filed by the petitioner has been rejected only an erroneous ground that audit had […]
