Advanced Search Options
Showing 1 to 20 of 117072 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2020 (10) TMI 1002 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Non availability of the documents of sale and purchase in respect of the goods that were found stored on the business premises of the petitioner - Section 35 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Since the issue is very little with regard to the availability of documents pertaining to the goods/ articles stored in the business premises and the genuine reason has been assigned for the same because of the transitional period from old Act to new Act, it would be in the fitness of things and the cause of justice would also get served in the opinion of the Court, if the petitioner is permitted 10 days' time to produce all the records bearing signatures of the designated authority of the Company who is competent to do so, before the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and GST, Gautam Budh Nagar for due verifi....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 1001 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Denial of Input Tax Credit - non-updation of the web portal of the GST Department - permission to rectify the form GSTR-3B by utilizing the available credits and/or permit the petitioner to file the necessary documents manually - section 49A & 49B of the Central GST Act 2017 read with Rule 88A of the GST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Upon hearing the counsel for the parties issue Notice returnable by 24-11-2020. Since the counsel for the respondents have already entered appearance no fresh Notice need be issued, however, sufficient copies of the writ petition be furnished to the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
- 2020 (10) TMI 1000 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Continuation of provisional attachment - Attachment of petitioner’s company’s current bank account - time limitation - expiry of the mandatory period of one year prescribed under Sub-Section(2) of Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The issue in the Writ Petition relates to a provisional attachment order dt.07.06.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent and its continuing existence after 06.06.2020, i.e., after the expiry of one year from 07.06.2019, contrary to sub-Section(2) of Section 83 of the Act. The fact that the said attachment cannot continue in view of the sunset clause in sub-Section(2) of Section 83 of the Act beyond a period of one year from 07.06.2019, is not in dispute. The impugned provisional attachment order dt.07.06.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent cannot continue after 06.06.2020 in view of sub-Section....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 999 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Validity of Garnishee Order - attachment order - time limitation under Section 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Court stayed the operation of the Garnishee Notice, for a period of two days for the reason that even before the expiry of the appeal time, as prescribed under Section 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the material available on record prima facie shows that even before the expiry of the time granted for filing an appeal for the assessment years January, 2020 to June, 2020, Garnishee Notice came to be issued. Similar is for the assessment year January, 2019 to December, 2019. Therefore, the execution of Garnishee Notice seeking attachment of ₹ 12,14,61,114/- appears to be on higher side. According to the petitioner, if an appeal is preferred, he has to deposi....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 997 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Assessment barred by limitation - HELD THAT:- Even though the revenue of the State is involved in the present appeal filed by the Revenue may be more than ₹ 1 Crore, the limit prescribed in the CBDE Circular for withdrawal of the appeal, we do not find any merit in the present appeal filed by the Revenue for the reason that the learned Tribunal has categorically held that there was no failure on the part of the assessee, but disclosed the relevant facts and therefore, merely on the basis of the audit objection or change of opinion and re-assessment under Sections 147 & 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could not be made beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year 1997-98. In the present case, the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued on ....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 996 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Eligibility of reasons to believe - Employee benefit expense, long term capital gains on slump sale, Bike event expenses, legal and Professional fees, employees as PF contribution, non-deduction of tax at source under Section 194J in respect of remittances towards fee for technical/professional services, disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- All issues based on which the impugned proceedings for re-assessment have been initiated emanate from the Return of income and accompanying annexures and have been noted even at the time of original proceeding. Queries have been raised by the officer even at that juncture and the petitioner has, admittedly, furnished explanations and details in response thereto. The reasons for re-assessment themselves fairly reveal that the assumption of jurisdiction is only based on ma....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 995 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Stay petition - HELD THAT:- Before the assessee had approached the Tribunal, the assessee had paid 25% of the disputed tax and as per the above orders, a further sum of ₹ 8,00,000/- had already been remitted. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the interest of the revenue is sufficiently safeguarded and nothing more is required to be done and the order of stay, which was initially granted on 11.06.2019 should continue till the appeal is heard and disposed of by the Tribunal. Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and in the light of the reasons assigned above, there shall be an order of interim stay of the demand raised by the AO pursuant to the order of assessment dated 14.03.2016, till the appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal is heard and disposed of on merits and in accordance with law.
- 2020 (10) TMI 994 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Mandatory filing electronic return of income - Prayer to declare that Rule 12 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 requiring such mandation is ultra vires the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Constitution and, hence, void and of no legal effect - as prayed when it is not possible for the Petitioner to file electronic return of income for reason beyond the control of the Petitioner, the Petitioner is entitled to file the return of income in paper form - HELD THAT:- Considering that the challenge in the petition is to the vires of Rule 12 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, issue notice to the Additional Solicitor General of India. Stand over after eight weeks. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court.
- 2020 (10) TMI 973 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Smuggling - Betel Nuts - reasons to believe - contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner received an order from one M/s Saurabh Traders for purchase of ''betel nuts' and the petitioner purchased the ''betel nuts' from the local market and send the goods to the said M/s Saurabh Traders through the transporter Nahata Transport - HELD THAT:- This Court held that the "reasons to believe" which are a sine-qua-non for exercising the powers under Section 110 of the Customs Act should be based upon acceptable materials and should be more than a moon shine. The "reasons to believe" based upon prima facie examination of goods by naked eye, opinion of the local traders as well as the inscriptions on some of the bags were not held to be a valid "reasons to believe"....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 972 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Direction to allow to petitioner to give his statement in presence of his counsel - Section 108 (3) of Customs Act - HELD THAT:- The petitioner may move appropriate application before the authority concerned seeking the benefit of Section 108 (3) Customs Act within a period of one week from today, in case he has already not moved such application. The authority concerned may consider and decide the said application in accordance with law, expeditiously. In case the petitioner is permitted to appear along with his agent i.e., his Lawyer; then, the authority concerned may proceed with the matter accordingly. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (10) TMI 971 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of SCN - Levy of Penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act on CHA - abetment of offence committed by the importer as against which the petitioner - scope of Sections 28(2) and 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 - suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The benefit extended to an assessee under section 28(2) is available only in those situations falling under clauses (i) and (ii) of section 28(1)(b), that is, either where the assessee self-computes or seeks a computation from the proper officer of the duty and interest payable, and remits the same voluntarily, even prior to the receipt of a SCN from the officer and not in any other situation contemplated under Section 28 - In the present case, the SCN has been issued invoking the provisions of section 28(5) which contemplates an alternate scheme of assessment....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 970 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund of excess duty paid on account of wrong declaration of invoice value - rejection of request for amendment of the bills - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in the present case, the goods have been cleared for home consumption and therefore the petitioner seeks the benefit of the proviso, as per which, the petitioner/assessee would be entitled for amendment if it were able to supply sufficient evidence by way of documents that were ‘in existence’ at the time of the goods were cleared, deposited or exported to establish the error - The lis in this matter revolves around the interpretation of the phrase‘in existence’, as according to the revenue the phrase should be read as available with the Department and it is only if the documents relied upon by the petitioner seeking amendment were, in fact, ‘on record’ t....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 958 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Demand of Interest over differential duty or unpaid service tax - Direction to deposit the arrears of interest on the enhanced rate of washed coking coal dispatched to the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) in terms of long terms agreement between the SAIL and this petitioner Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) for the period from April 2011 to March, 2012 - Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- By virtue of this judgment in the case of M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR [2019 (5) TMI 657 - SUPREME COURT] the issue now stands settled that the assessee is liable to pay interest upon the differential duty and / or the unpaid service tax detected by the Revenue. Petition dismissed.
- 2020 (10) TMI 956 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Exemption from payment of entry tax - certificate granted to the petitioner under the Madhya Pradesh Udyog Nivesh Samvardhan Sahayta Yojna, 2004 and 2010 - contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner Company is engaged in the manufacturing of technical textile, chemicals, engineering, plastics packaging films, refrigerant gases at various locations in India and overseas - HELD THAT:- The respondents have carried out the reassessment only in respect of five assessment years ie., 2004-05, 2006- 07 and 2011-12 to 2012-13 and exemption has been granted only in respect of five assessment years. The respondents ought to have re-assessed the assessment years w.e.f. 2007- 08 to 2010-11 also. The petitioner has submitted more than a dozen of applications to the Commissioner for granting exemption in respect of the remaining years and the C....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 955 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - validity of Penal Interest Order and Penalty Order - tax payments were made belatedly by the petitioner - periods April, 2016 to June, 2016, September, 2016, October, 2016 and December, 2016 to March, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The 1st respondent passed the impugned orders on 21.08.2020 levying both penal interest and penalty by separate Proceedings without considering the objections by merely stating that the contention of the petitioner is not considered. There is no discussion about the detailed objections filed by the petitioner on 21.11.2019 or reply dt.27.12.2019 - Since there is non-consideration of the objections dt.21.11.2019 or reply dt.27.12.2019 filed by the petitioner to the show-cause notice dt.01.11.2019, the impugned Penalty Order as well as Penal Interest Order cannot be sustained. The matters are ....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 954 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - Concessional rate of tax - sale of the used motor vehicles - case of petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was granted, except permission to file reply, even the rate of tax as per Section 6(1) of the KVAT has not been charged properly - HELD THAT:- Discretion by warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be always exercised in case, on perusal of the impugned order, prima facie, it is established to be without jurisdiction or non- adherence to the principles of natural justice. But the argument of counsel representing the petitioner is apparently not tenable on plain perusal of the impugned order as not only the reply was ordered to be given on 28.02.2020 even the Assistant Manager of the petitioner also appeared and he argued the matter as noticed in the impugned ord....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 951 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Profiteering - vires of Section 171(3) of CGST Act and Chapter XV of the CGST Rules specifically Rules 126, 127 and 133 of GST Rules - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the orders passed by this Court in PHILLIPS INDIA LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2020 (6) TMI 626 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as well as M/S. SAMSONITE SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2020 (7) TMI 526 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and M/S. PATANJALI AYURVED LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2020 (7) TMI 614 - DELHI HIGH COURT], this Court directs the petitioner to deposit the balance principal profiteered amount i.e. ₹ 25,15,392/- (₹ 55,60,340/- minus ₹ 2,64,778/- minus ₹ 27,80,170/-) with the State Consumer Welfare Fund in six equated monthly installments commencing 02nd November, 2020. - The interest amount directed to be paid by th....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 950 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Stay on the operation of direction under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules - HELD THAT:- The direction under Rule 133(4) of the CGST Rules given in the impugned order dated 07th July, 2020 to the respondent no.3 to undertake further investigation and the notice dated 09th October, 2020 as well as summons dated 25th September, 2020 are stayed till further orders. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
- 2020 (10) TMI 945 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Revision u/s 263 - AO failing to provide the draft assessment order in terms of Section 144C(1) of the said Act to the Assessee, had violated the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the assessment order dated 18/12/2009, was erroneous and deserved to be set aside. whether the assessment order dated 18/12/2009 in this case, is void ab initio or not? - HELD THAT:- Going by the decisions of Control Risk India (P.) Ltd. [2018 (7) TMI 892 - SC ORDER]; International Air Transport Association; Lionbridge Technologies (P.) Ltd. [2018 (12) TMI 764 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. [2014 (6) TMI 540 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], we have to hold that the assessment order dated 18/12/2009, in the present case, was clearly without jurisdiction and, therefore, null and void or void ab initio. The fact that the Assessee, in this case....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 944 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment - Penalty u/s 271AAC - unexplained income u/s 69 (A) - petitioner, argues that the order passed is cryptic in nature as also the Officer has not assigned any reason for carrying out re-assessment in the case of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that all material facts necessary for adjudication were recorded and considered by the Officer and as such the order cannot be said to be in violation of principles of natural justice, even though it may be short in nature. Since disputed questions of fact are raised before us, we refrain from adjudicating the same, reserving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a statutory appeal which is an equally efficacious remedy. As such, present petition stands disposed of. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that limitation may not come in the way of adjudication of the appeal.