Madras High Court provided benefit of notification no. 03/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 granting extension of time limit for application for revocation of cancellation of registration even if registration was cancelled on 11.05.2023. Accordingly, directed to restore GST registration.
In a recent Delhi High Court ruling, it is established that rejecting a lower TDS rate application necessitates a well-reasoned order. Explore case of Shreyash Retail Private Ltd vs. DCIT TDS Circle.
Addition under section 69A was not justified as AO had not brought on record any material in support of the addition made by him nor he provided any basis for arriving at the basis, particularly when all the 30 flats had not been sold during the year relevant to AY 2017-18, therefore, there was no basis for arriving at the conclusion that assessee had received any on-money.
Since there was no DIN mentioned in the assessment order which was contrary to the CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14th August 2019, therefore, the jurisdiction assumed was invalid as generation of DIN subsequently and generation of intimation to be sent to assessee were of no consequence for the purpose of assessment and raising the demand.
Interest was not payable accumulated CENVAT credit lying unutilized as in case of export of services under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, assessee was free to take back the credit of not sanctioned / partially sanctioned refunds.
Detailed analysis of Gujarat High Court’s judgment in Bharatkumar Pravinkumar & Co. vs. State of Gujarat regarding seizure of cash under GST Act.
Madras High Court case highlights importance of complying with Rule 88C of the CGST Rules to effect recovery based on difference in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. Madras High Court allowed the writ petition in M/s. Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner Chennai, ruling that no recovery could be effected without complying with rule 88C of the CGST Rules.
CESTAT Mumbai held that in case of premature availment of cenvat credit on capital goods the recovery proceedings under rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) would not sustain and only interest liability will arise.
Delhi High Court held that notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act after the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which return is furnished is barred by limitation and hence unsustainable in law.
Kerala High Court held that as two authorities have concurrently held in favour of the petitioner and ordered release of the Gold and Currency, the same cannot be retained. Accordingly, confiscated gold and cash directed to be released.
