/** * The main template file * * This is the most generic template file in a WordPress theme * and one of the two required files for a theme (the other being style.css). * It is used to display a page when nothing more specific matches a query. * E.g., it puts together the home page when no home.php file exists. * * @link https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/basics/template-hierarchy/ * * @package WordPress * @subpackage Tally * @since 1.0.0 */ ?>
In State v. Mohit Maan [FIR No. 301/2020 dated September 29, 2021] the Honorable Patiala House Court sought a response from Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (“the CBIC”) for not initiating appropriate action against delinquent firms involved in Goods and Services Tax (GST) evasion worth Rupees 940 Crores.
The Assistant Commissioner appeared on behalf of State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) and has claimed that they have already initiated action at their end not only against the delinquent firms but also against their employees. However, the Assistant Commissioner has categorically insisted that information was duly shared by them with the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and yet the CGST Authorities was not inclined to initiate any action against the remaining 202 firms out of 486 firms.
The Honorable Patiala House Court said that from the replies filed on behalf of the CGST Dept, a very sorry state of affairs is revealed. Evidently, as per the claim of the CGST Dept, the SGST Dept is not even aware of the correct address of the CGST offices.
“The Court is in pain to observe that instead of initiating appropriate action against the delinquent firms in the matter, wherein as per the claim of Delhi Police, a tax evasion of Rs.940 crores is involved, the authorities are involved in the blame game. Unfortunately, none is present on behalf of SGST and even no reply has been filed on behalf of Chairperson, CBIC,” the Court while expressing its dissatisfaction said.
(Author can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
In M/s Quest Engineers & Consultant Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise [Final Order No. 70226/2021 dated September 28, 2021] Hon’ble Customs, Excise and Service
In M/s Asian School of Media Studies v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax [Final Order Nos. 70251-70252 / 2021 dated November 11, 2021] Hon’ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate
In Inox Leisure Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax [Service Tax Appeal No. 30489 of 2016 decided on October 20, 2021] Hon’ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (“CESTAT”)
The Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (“CESTAT”) in the matter of Sherly Sany v. C.C, Cochin [Final Order No. 20812 / 2021 dated October 28, 2021], while quashing
The Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (“CESTAT”) in the matter of M/s. Deify Infrastructures Limited v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Customs