2022-TIOL-604-ITAT-AHM

Himanshu Engineering Works Vs Pr.CIT

Whether power of revision is rightly exercised where issue of disallowance of late payment of EPF beyond due date, has not been considered by the AO - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

2022-TIOL-603-ITAT-AHM

Gujarat Rohit Samaj Trust Vs DCIT

Whether intimation generated u/s 143(1) is not 'assessment' and therefore, benefit as provided under 1st proviso to Section 12AA(2) is unavailable to 'trusts' - YES: ITAT

Whether tax shall be charged on income of trust at maximum marginal rate in pursuance to provisions of section 164(1) - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

2022-TIOL-602-ITAT-AHM

Kadam Reality Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

Whether merely on account of mistake in accounting treatment by mistakenly showing any sum under head 'loans and advances' instead of 'trade receivables', section 36(1)(iii) can be invoked - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD ITAT

GST - Appellant has no other alternative remedy provided under the Act for him to avail questioning the correctness of the order, therefore, they had rightly invoked jurisdiction of this Court: HC

GST - Department has been continuously recovering towards demand quantified by debiting amounts from credit ledger account - If appellant had preferred an appeal, he would be statutorily required to pre-deposit only 10%: HC

2022-TIOL-848-HC-KOL-GST

Rohit Varma Vs Asstt. Commissioner

GST - Appellate authority after examining certain facts came to the conclusion that the appellant did not carry any business from the declared place and the documents filed by the appellant in support of the same are not correct and accordingly, affirmed the cancellation of the registration made under Section 29(2)(e) of the Act read with Rule 21 of the relevant Rules – Single Judge held that the issues raised by the appellant are all disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in a writ petition, therefore, the present appeal.

Held: As against the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 30th November, 2021, the appellant has no other alternative remedy provided under the Act for him to avail questioning the correctness of the said order, therefore, the appellant had rightly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - To state that the writ petition cannot be entertained on the ground, which has been mentioned in the impugned order does not reflect the correct legal position, hence same is set aside – Bench is satisfied that the procedure adopted by the authority while cancelling the registration was thoroughly flawed - Matter requires to be remanded to the original authority, namely, first respondent to redo the matter by conducting a proper enquiry - In the result, the appeal is allowed - Order dated 17th March, 2021 directing rejection of application for revocation of cancellation is also set aside and the said application is restored to the file of the first respondent for conducting fresh enquiry: High Court [para 4, 10, 11]

- Appeal allowed: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-847-HC-KOL-GST

Amar Construction Vs Deputy Commissioner of Revenue

GST - Intra-court appeal filed against the order passed by single Judge Bench - Petitioner submits that having directed the respondents to file their affidavit-in-opposition within a time-frame, Bench ought to have granted an interim order in the interregnum protecting the interests of the appellant as the department has been continuously recovering the amount as quantified in the order impugned in the writ petition by debiting the same from the credit ledger account.

Held: Submission of appellant appears to be reasonable because if the appellant had preferred a statutory appeal, he would be statutorily required to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed amount of tax and admittedly close to 20% of the disputed amount of tax has already been recovered - That apart, if any recovery proceeding has been initiated prior to 28th May, 2022, i.e. prior to expiry of the period of limitation for filing a statutory appeal, then such recoveries will have no sanction of law as it would, in effect make the appellate remedy infructuous - In any event, the recoveries to close to 20% of the entire demand having been made, Bench is of the view that till the writ petition is heard and disposed of (by Single Judge Bench), no further recovery shall be made from the appellant - Writ appeal disposed of: High Court [para 11, 14]

- Appeal disposed of: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT