HC set aside order confirming excess claim of ITC) passed by Assistant Commissioner (ST) on the ground that the Petitioner was not granted fair opportunity of hearing.
HC held that Mere issuance of show cause notice or letters of personal hearing to an assessee is not adequate. Assessing Officer is required to record a finding that notices were issued and served upon the assessee but despite service of notice the assessee did not come forward to contest the proceeding.
Telangana HC follows SC Judgment in Filco Trade on opening of GST Portal for claiming transitional credit for two months from 01.09.2022 to 30.10.2022.
Telangana High Court held that the accused officer is entitled to acquittal as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused Officer with substantial and constructive evidence that he had demanded and accepted the bribe.
Telengana High Court held that statute has introduced limitation under section 39(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to rectify omission/ error in GSTR-1 return and accordingly assessee cannot be permitted to carry out rectification beyond the statutorily prescribed period.
Telangana High Court held that Tribunal rightly held the addition of LTCG as execution of registered sale deed is valid transfer u/s 2(47)(V). Hence, as the finding of fact by the Tribunal is clear the same doesn’t require any interference.
When the show cause notice itself clearly says that petitioner should file written statement within seven days of receipt of the notice, we fail to understand as to how 1st respondent could have arrived at such a conclusion.
Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated cancelling GST registration as well as order dismissing appeal filed by petitioner. In this case Assessing Officer has suo motu cancelled the GST registration of the petitioner on the ground of non-filing of returns and as GST Tribunal has not been constituted under Section 109 of the CGST Act, petitioner would be left without any remedy.
Pramod Kumar Vs ACIT (Telangana High Court) HC is of the view that present is not a fit case to interdict the proceedings at the very threshold. Reasons have been assigned by the assessing officer as to why the explanation given by the petitioner could not be accepted. Certainly, such reasons given have a nexus […]
Merely placing the blame on the counsel cannot justify the inordinate delay of 1546 days. Even the particulars have not been furnished as to when the appeal was filed, when it was returned, the name of the counsel, whether the appellant had thereafter met the counsel etc. On the basis of such bald statements, we are not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 1546 days. No sufficient cause has been shown.
