Balancing Taxpayer Rights while protecting Interests of Revenue: A case comment on Supreme Court decision clarifying provisional attachment mechanism under GST Laws
by Tarun Jain†
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 61
Revenue
CESTAT | Revenue has miserably failed to discharge its onus; Tribunal finds impugned order opposed to principles of natural justice
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed the appeals which were filed after the Adjudicating Authority
Explained| Scope of Section 80-IA(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with respect to determination of quantum of deduction under Section 80-IA(1)
Supreme Court: Interpreting the true scope of Section 80-IA(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the bench of L. Nageswara Rao* and
Ori HC | No doubt, industrialization is required for enhancement of revenue, but that does not mean at the cost of the lives of human being by destroying eco-system
Orissa High Court: A Division Bench of Mohammed Rafiq and B. R. Sarangi, JJ., disposed off the writ petition holding that equity
Kar HC | Income from the exercise of the stock option has to be treated as income from salaries only when the relationship of employer-employee is established for purposes of S. 15-17 of IT Act
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Alok Aradhe and H. T. Narendra Prasad JJ., allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned
CESTAT | Calculation of Revenue found to be erroneous and high pitched; Tribunal allows appeal setting aside penalty S. 11AC read with R. 25 of Central Excise Rules
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member), allowed an appeal which was filed aggrieved by the judgment
CESTAT | Assessee eligible for availing CENVAT credit on service tax paid on outward transportation of its finished goods; Tribunal dismisses appeal by the Revenue
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member), dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue alleging that the
CESTAT | Requirement of mens rea is a sine qua non for imposing a penalty on Customs Broker under Ss. 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal (CESTAT): Justice P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by a shipping company against the
CESTAT | No malafide intention found by revenue raises assumption that revenue satisfied with the ‘sufficient clause’
Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellant Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai: These appeals were preferred by the assessee before a Coram of P. Dinesha
Re-assessment notice quashed for violating the mandate of Section 148(2) of IT Act; Revenue found to play subterfuge
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of S. Ravindra Bhat and A.K. Chawla, JJ. allowed a writ petition filed against the
Assessment order passed without ‘draft assessment’ as mandated by Section 144-C, IT Act – Held without jurisdiction
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of M.S. Sanklecha and Sandeep K. Shinde, JJ., allowed a writ petition filed against the