Guwahati High Court held that since the Average Annual Financial Turnover cannot be said to be the same as an Income Tax Return, non-submission of income tax returns as required duly disqualifies the petitioner’s tender bid.
Supreme Court held that disciplinary proceedings against appellant (commercial tax officer) pertaining to charges punishable with major penalty without oral evidence recorded by department in support of charges is totally vitiated and non-est in the eye of law.
Bombay High Court held that the system-generated provisional acknowledgement of the appeal shows that requisite pre-deposit has been made, thus dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with necessary pre-deposit required in Section 107(6) of the CGST Act not justified.
Thereafter, a detailed reply was issued by the petitioner, through its counsel, on 18.08.2021. According to the petitioner, no order was communicated by the first and second respondents after the above mentioned reply was issued.
Though Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not fix any period of limitation for the filing of a writ petition, it is settled law that a writ petition can be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the writ petition.
Delhi High Court held that cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect merely because the taxpayer has not filed returns for some period not justified. Court directed to cancel registration from date of issuance of SCN.
ITAT Bangalore held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) merely because the same was filed belatedly not justified as CIT(A) failed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee so as to the grounds for condonation.
Delhi High Court held that levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb i.e. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income not valid. Accordingly, penalty set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that CPC wrongly processed return by considering due date as 5th August instead of 31st October. Accordingly, interest charged under section 234A of the Income Tax Act deleted and interest charged under section 234B altered.
ITAT Bangalore held that when the reasons supplied to the assessee and the reasons supplied before higher forum is not verbatim same, it cannot sustain the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
