Speech of Piyush Goyal Minister of Finance February 1, 2019
Section 30E of West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003, read with rule 44 of West Bengal Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, requires submission of statements, accounts, audit reports or declarations by registered dealers within the 31st December after the end of the year.
Audit Report in Form 88, as provided for under rule 44 of WBVAT Rules, was omitted with effect from 01.04.2017, and instead every registered dealer, who is mandated to get his accounts audited under the provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) (IT), was required to submit a copy of the said IT audit report under section 30E of the WBVAT Act, together with a copy of the Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet for such year within the 31st day of December after the end of the year.
After the GST law being implemented with effect from the 1st day of July, 2017, there seems to be some confusion amongst some dealers regarding submission of statements, etc., under section 30E, for the quarter ended 30.06.2017. It is hereby clarified that since the provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not require
audit for a single quarter hence submission of statements, accounts, audit reports for the quarter ended 30.06.2017 is not mandatory under section 30E of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
254(1)/ Rule 34(5)(c): An order passed by the Tribunal even one day after the prescribed period of 90 days from the date of hearing causes prejudice to the assessee and is liable to be recalled and the appeal posted for fresh hearing
Since, in the present case, the order has been pronounced one day beyond 90 days prescribed under the Rules, we respectfully following the order of the Hon’ble High Court discussed above, recall the order dated 09.11.2017 without going into the merits of the other grounds raised in the application, for fresh hearing Read the rest of this entry »
148/ 151: If the AO issues the notice for reopening the assessment before obtaining the sanction of the CIT, the reopening is void ab initio. The fact that the sanction was given just one day after the issue of notice makes no difference
No doubt in the present case, the ld.AO has applied for such approval which was granted on 29.3.2017, but before grant of approval, the ld.AO has already issued notice on 28.3.2014 which is without any jurisdiction. He can issue notice only after getting approval. Thus, the ld.CIT(A) has rightly quashed the assessment because the very foundation for issuance of notice under section 148 is the approval from the competent authority, i.e. Commissioner of Income Tax, and in the absence of such, such notice is void ab initio Read the rest of this entry »