otice under section 148 issued on the basis of insufficient compliance to Letters dated 20.05.2011 and dated 02.02.2016 were wholly unauthorized in law as the reasons recorded must indicate that AO had applied his mind to the fact that income was chargeable to tax under the Act and it had exceeded maximum amount not chargeable to income Tax. Hence, reassessment was not valid as there were no reasons recorded by AO in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction in this case.
Proceedings under section 148 could not be initiated for verification of the sources of investment and therefore, the reasons recorded by AO were no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction for issuing notice under section 148.
Notice under section 148 could not be issued for verification of information, but here the jurisdictional satisfaction of the essential requirement had to be shown that there had to be reason to believe that there was income chargeable to tax which was not there in the assessment order passed. Thus, the reasons recorded by AO were no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction and the assessment orders u/s 144 read with 147 was quashed.
Applicant has stated that it is absolutely clear that one cannot invoice as terming Edible copra as its edibility is challenged and it is also clear that HS Code 1203 Copra is meant only for Milling copra (refer HSN Explanatory notes) and their commodity falls under HSN Code 08011920 only
The applicant vide their letter dated 26th August 2019 has submitted that they wish to voluntarily and unconditionally withdraw the advance ruling application as the CBIC circular No.107/26/2019-GST dated 18.07.2019 has provided clarity to the ambiguity for which they had sought the Advance Ruling.
In re A.M. Abdul Rahman Rowther & Co (GST AAR Tamilnadu) The issue raised by the applicant is the classification of the product manufactured by them and the applicability of Notification No.01/2017 Comp.Cess (Rate). From the comments furnished by the Commissioner GST 86 Central Excise, Trichy, it is seen that the proceedings in respect of […]
Where no notice under section 148 is issued or if the notice so issued is shown to be invalid, or the service of notice so issued, is shown to be invalid, AO could not proceed with the subsequent proceedings for making assessment, reassessment or re-computation under section 147. Unless, the notice was served on the proper person in the manner prescribed under section 282, the service was insufficient and AO did not have jurisdiction to re-assess the escaped income.
In re M/s Forbes Facility Services Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAR Punjab) M/s Forbes Facility Services Pvt. Ltd., R.O. B1 /B2, Manathon Innova, Off. Ganpatrao Kadam Marge, Mumbai-13, Regional office SCO No. 49, 3rd Floor, Above Bank of India, Phase-9, Sector 63, SAS Nagar, Punjab hereinafter referred to as ‘applicant’ had submitted an application for advance […]
M/s Rasrasna Food Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Punjab High Court) Observing that the twin conditions of presentation of Bill of Entry and arrival of goods stood complied with on 16-2-2019, prior to the issue of notification dated 16-2-2019 at 8:45 pm raising Customs duty on imports from Pakistan, Punjab & Haryana […]
In re M/s Bharat Electronics Limited. (GST AAR Karnataka) Whether the various systems, sub-systems and onboard spares supplied by the applicant for use in the Warships, Vessels and Submarines meant for Indian Navy and Shipbuilders, attracts 5% GST? Various systems, sub-systems and onboard spares supplied by the applicant for use in the Warships, Vessels and […]
