Since there was no material to proceed against assessee under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and High Court should quash the proceedings if it came to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue, would be an abuse of the process of the Court and that the ends of justice required that the proceedings be required to be quashed.
HC set aside the best judgment assessment order passed for non-compliance with the request to file GSTR-3B return, by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Axis Wind Farms (Anantapur) Private Limited Vs Union of India (Telangana High Court) Petitioner contends that the impugned Assessment Order has been passed by 2nd respondent for the Assessment Year 2018-19 without providing a personal hearing to the petitioner and without considering the documentary evidence provided by petitioner. Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned Special Senior Counsel […]
Vijay Metal Vs Deputy Commercial Tax officer (Telangana High Court) 1. The point that Hyderabad comes first and Adoni comes later; ignoring the operational convenience of the transporter; is not justifiable. HC not accepted the contention of the officer that even if the goods meant to be delivered at Adoni were loaded on top of […]
The respective authorities was restrained from declaring Company as a defaulter under the SVLDR Scheme and from from taking any coercive action against the Directors, Officials of company as the Income Tax department did not release the refund due to assessee and therefore, assessee could not pay the amount determined by the Designated Committee under the SVLDRS.
Rule 8(3A) applied to cases where assessee had defaulted in payment of excise duty beyond 30 days from the due date and it did not apply to every case where in the department, during the scrutiny of returns, during audit or during investigation found any additional amount payable as duty of excise. Tribunal had given cogent reasons for its finding that assessee’s case was a case of demand under Section 11A and was not covered by Rule 8(3A) and the Revenue was not correct in denying utilization of Cenvat Credit to the assessee by applying the said sub-rule.
Akzo Nobel India Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Telangana High Court) Commercial Tax Officer shall pay costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the petitioner, which shall be recovered from the salary of the 1st respondent, and disciplinary action shall be initiated against 1st respondent for non-consideration of material filed by petitioner before […]
Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. State of Telangana (Telangana High Court) In the last one year, we have noticed at least 200 cases where the Assessing Officer under the CST Act has not issued show cause notice or if they issued notice, they have not considered the response of the assessees, and mechanically confirmed the demand […]
Where there was non-consideration of material evidence by a statutory authority, judicial review by the High Court in exercise of it’s power under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is permissible, and existence of alternative remedy is not a bar for exercise of such power.
Telangana High Court held that the action of the respondents in conducting panchanama dt.28.08.2019 and seizing cash of Rs.5.00 crores from Vipul Kumar Patel, employee of the petitioner in W.P.No.23023 of 2019, and retaining it till date, is illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also violative of Art.14
