Grievance of the petitioner is that despite payment of taxes on regular basis and there being no arrear tax due, respondents did not issue the ‘C’ declaration forms. Petitioner had furnished proof of inter-state sale and transport of goods. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above.
Telangana High Court granted two months time for submission of reply to the show cause notice. Further, stated that extended period of two months will be excluded for the purpose of computing period of 180 days under Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Telangana High Court held that as all the material facts were fully and truly disclosed reopening of assessment on mere change of opinion is unsustainable in law.
Section 83 of the CGST Act mandating that a provisional attachment order would have a life span of only one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1). After expiry of a period of one year, such provisional attachment would cease to have effect.
HC held that as the issue pertains to cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner, it would be just and proper if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner.
HC Held that, no GST registration could be suspended or cancelled on basis of Head Office directions without assigning any reason.
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.
