The amount reimbursed to the assessee (service provider) by the ONGC (service recipient), representing the service tax paid earlier by the assessee to the Government of India, would not form part of the aggregate amount referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section(2) of Section 44BB of the Act....

Jaspreet Kalra Vs. Union of India (High Court of Uttarakhand) It is the contention of learned senior counsel that the vehicle of the petitioner has been seized by respondent no.3 thereby imposing a penalty of Rs.5,03,125/- equal to the IGST (the tax amount) on the technical ground that the validity of e-way bill had expired […]...

Kundan Singh Vs State & others (Uttarakhand High Court) Salary is the property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. No GST or Service Tax can be deducted from the salary of the petitioners without any authority of law. It is reiterated that the Principal Employer is the State Government. The […]...

CIT Vs M/s T.V. Sundaram Ayangar & Sons (Uttarakhand High Court) It is stated that since there was no authorized translator in the Department as well as in the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, it took some time to translate the documents. Lastly, it is stated  that due to above mentioned reasons, delay has […]...

This appeal is filed against a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) relating to Assessment Years 1997-98 onwards, for a period of eight years, till 2004-05. On the filing of the Appeal, an objection was raised by the respondent/ assessee, represented by Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate, th...

The revisionist called in question the order dated 01.06.2009 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand, by which the Tribunal allowed the Appeal filed by the respondent assessee and set aside the order of the Appellate authority and also modified the order passed by the Assessing officer and set aside the tax imposed and declare...

Commissioner Tax Vs M/s Hanuman Industries Kichha (Uttarakhand High Court) There is delay of 1819 days’ in filing the Revision. It is stated that after receiving the copy of the judgment dated 29.01.2013, matter was discussed at various levels and the proposal was received by the Department on 01.05.2013. It is stated that Department in...

M/s Hillways Construction Company Private Limited Vs Income Tax Department and others (Uttarakhand High Court); Admittedly Section 420 of IPC is an offence which comes under Chapter XVII of the IPC. Income Declaration Scheme (IDS), 2016, of which the petitioner is seeking benefit, categorically stipulates that in case prosecution is going...

Assessee is obliged to deduct tax on the payment made by it to the Carrier under the contracts for transporting the petroleum products in the business in which the respondent assessee is engaged. On the one hand, it is the case of the appellant Department that the case of the respondent assessee falls under Section 194-I of the Income Tax...

In this case, we are concerned with the question as to whether Samosa is to be treated as namkeen or cooked food and we are not asked to pronounce upon whether it is to be treated as unclassified items, the choice is narrowed down to whether it is to be treated as namkeen or as cooked food. ...