Directorate of Enforcement Vs Kamma Srinivasa Rao (Telangana High Court) In the present case, the allegations against the accused are that he is the main conspirator and has derived proceeds of crime in the form of movable and immovable assets. The accused along with other IMS officials and private persons is alleged to have conspired […]
Kishan Kothwal Vs ITO (Telangana High Court) HC held that The parameters for making addition under Section 68 of the Act and under Section 69A of the Act, though may appear to be similar, however, is not so; therefore, addition of cash credit under Section 68 of the Act would stand on a different pedestal. […]
Sirpur Paper Mills Limited Vs Union of India (Telangana High Court) Insofar carry forward of losses and adjustments against future profits are concerned, the same is provided by Clause 17.7 (c) of the resolution plan. However, as and when such carry forward and set off is claimed by the petitioner in future, i.e. beyond the […]
Ravi Kumar Vs State of Telangana (Telangana High Court) Admittedly, petitioner was arrested on 27.11.2021 and custody of petitioner was also sought for five days and the only allegation against the petitioner is that being a Chartered Accountant, without verifying the Bills of Entry and economic rationale of such large payments from paper entities had […]
Kodam Danalakshmi Vs State of Telangana (Telangana High Court) A person who is the signatory to the cheque and the cheque is drawn by that person on an account maintained by him and the cheque has been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability and the said […]
Infosys Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of SGST (Telangana High Court) In a case where the proper officer is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that the whole or any part of the amount claimed as refund is not admissible or is not payable, he shall issue notice to the applicant requiring filing of […]
Since no definite view could be taken that the notice was beyond the period of limitation in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 and it depend upon the factual examination and adjudication by the adjudicating authority, therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Central Tax Commissioner.
Since no discrepancy had been found with regard to the suppliers of assessee, the refund claim by assessee could not be denied to be processed on the ground that verification of the suppliers of assessee’s supplier was pending as the provisions of the CGST Act and the IGST Act did not mandate refund claimant to verify the genuineness of the suppliers of its supplier, inasmuch as enough safeguards/mechanism were provided under the Act to recover the taxes, if not paid or wrong credit was availed by assessee’s supplier or supplier’s supplier.
Assessee could not be compelled to wait for eternity to agitate its claim seeking refund under the provisions of GST of the amount to which it was entitled to under the statute and also blocking its funds affecting its cash flows, merely because of existence of (non functional) alternate forum/remedy on paper, by not invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Vuppalapati Venkata Rama Rao Vs Directorate of Enforcement and another (Telangana High Court) Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss needs to be viewed seriously – case not fit to grant anticipatory bail Facts- The Punjab National Bank has alleged that the company has availed various credit facilities from the consortium of banks […]
