Thunuguntia Jagan Mohan Rao Vs DCIT (Telangana High Court) The issue under consideration is whether rejection of application of condonation of delay by the ITAT is justified in law? High Court states that, it held that there is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate and the words ‘sufficient cause’ under […]
In our opinion, this action of the respondents is also violative of Art.14,19,265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own negligence, assuming that the Demand drafts handed over by the petitioner, were not presented and encashed by the respondents.
Claim of SBI on income tax refund credited in the the defaulters’ bank account with it would get priority over the government dues including the service tax dues as per section 31-B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and sec. 26E of the SARFAESI Act,2002 w.e.f.1.9.2016.
The issue under consideration is whether without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondent has passed the order is justified in law?
Detention of goods on the ground that the vehicle took a different route or reached wrong destination- The High Court observed that allegation of ‘wrong destination’ or that the driver has taken a different route is not a ground to detain the vehicle carrying the goods or levy tax or penalty. It was held that the fact that the vehicle was found at another place does not automatically lead to any presumption that there was an intention of evasion of tax. The amount collected was directed to be refunded with interest @ 6%.
Income tax returns are public documents and they can be summoned by the Court. If same are produced before the Court , the same does not result in violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India, as they are Government documents and are accessible to others.
Assessee was entitled to claim refund of service tax on composite contract of immovable property including value of land as merely because assessee made the payment, it would not partake the character of service tax and the department could not retain the amount paid by assessee which was in fact not payable by them.
State cannot be allowed to levy life tax on the ex-showroom price shown in the price list, when it is not the actual cost of the vehicle and the life tax has to be levied on the actual cost of the vehicle as paid by the purchaser of the vehicle which can be reflected from the invoice.
In the case of Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Ltd. High Court has directed that to GST Department that in the event interest is not paid under Section 50 thereof, there shall be a direction to respondent to not to initiate any coercive action against the petitioner until further orders.
Raghava Constructions Vs Union of India (Telangana High Court) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the proceedings of letter C.No. V/04/06/2019-Arrears, dated 31.07.2019, issued by 2nd respondent, pending disposal of WP.No.16885 of […]
