The Rajasthan High Court maintained a stay order in Mohit Kirana Store vs. CBIC, questioning the legality of a circular delegating summons power under the GST Act.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that date of making payment under Sabka Vishwas [Legacy Dispute Resolution] Scheme [SVLDR Scheme] extended due to COVID pandemic since denying benefit of SVLDR Scheme would be contrary to the object of the scheme.
NCLT Delhi held that application u/s. 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating CIRP against corporate debtor admitted as Operational Creditor satisfied all the required criteria and no pre-existing dispute was present in relation to payment of revised wages by the Corporate Debtor.
Jharkhand High Court held that review can only be sought if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise’. Accordingly, review petition dismissed.
The Bombay High Court set aside a GST recovery notice issued to a bank, ruling that the taxpayer must receive prior notice and an opportunity to dispute liability under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act.
The Madras High Court directed a fresh GST assessment, citing a violation of natural justice when a taxpayer’s emailed reply was ignored and no personal hearing was granted.
Madras High Court held that the question of jurisdiction of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to conduct proceedings under section 148A of the Income Tax Act is referred to Larger Bench. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
Assessee invoiced the client department for a consolidated sum towards the amounts charged by the empanelled agencies, service tax on their services and 10% or 15% as its service charges and service tax on its service charges.
According to assessee, these claims were arbitrarily “zeroed out” in June 2018 without any speaking order or prior intimation, and without issuing a deficiency memo highlighting the alleged deficiencies in the claims.
CESTAT Kolkata held that payment received towards Licensing Fee from mobile towers cannot be considered as ‘rent’ to fall within the definition of ‘renting of immovable property’. Accordingly, service tax demand to that extent set aside.
