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 […]
Even in the instant case the amount spent by the complainant was not shown in his income tax returns. As such, the trial Court had rightly held that it creates a doubt regarding the financial position of the appellant and if he really spent that much amount, there must be record for him for withdrawal of amount from his bank account and spending the same.
SEBI’s order appointing GTB as a forensic auditor challenged. High Court quashes decision due to bias concerns, orders new auditor appointment
BMW India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Telangana High Court) In the facts of the present case, even though the petitioner is in receipt of an acknowledgment number and also an email confirming successful submission of the Form GST TRAN-1 electronically, the information furnished thereunder is not transitioned into online electronic credit […]
Sony India Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India & Another (Telangana High Court) It is the duty and responsibility of the Assessing Officer / Assistant Commissioner to correctly determine the duty leviable in accordance with law before clearing the goods for Home consumption. The assessing officer instead, having failed in correctly determining the duty payable, […]
The petitioner, being an assessee under Telangana GST Act, 2017, CGST Act, 2017, and IGST Act, 2017 is issued a letter specifying, Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed by them are on the basis of fake invoices issued by certain fictitious suppliers/firms. The letter further specifies that, ITC availed by the petitioner is in a fraudulent manner without receiving any material, and the petitioner was requested to reverse ITC on such invoices.
