In State of West Bengal v. Purvi Communication (P.) Ltd. [2005] 140 STC 154, the Apex Court upheld the entertainment tax levy on cable television by West Bengal. It was held that cable operators had direct and close nexus with the entertainments made available to the viewer through their cable television network. The performance, film [...]

The conclusion that mere non-payment of duties is equivalent to collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts is untenable. If that were to be true, then, it was beyond understanding, which form of non-payment would amount to ordinary default ? Construing mere non-payment as falling under categories of ‘suppression’, ‘wilful misstatement’, etc. would leave [...]

It has been submitted by Mr. Banerji, learned senior counsel, that if the Company Court as well as the DRT can exercise jurisdiction in respect of the same auction or sale after adjudication by the DRT, there would be duality of exercise of jurisdiction which the RDB Act does not envisage. By way of an [...]

According to Mr. Diwan, no real basis for the Adjudicating Authority and the Tribunal to hold that Bountiful was a paper company and that it was being controlled by the Desais from India. Mr. Diwan made a strenuous attempt to persuade us to reverse the findings of fact recorded by the Adjudicating Authority and the [...]

As CA certificate did not conform to the provisions contained in the regulations which requires that the certificate of the Chartered Accountant should be in confirmation of the Audited Accounts of the promoters/applicant for the five years preceding the date of the application. We are unable to approve the observations made by SAT that “neither [...]

Applying the above principles to the case at hand Section 29 of the RDDB Act incorporates the provisions of the Rules found in the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act for purposes of realisation of the dues by the Recovery Officer under the RDDB Act.

Recently the Supreme Court in M/s Laxmi Dye Chem Vs State of Gujarat & Ors set aside the order of high court of which quashed the Complaints filed before the trial court u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881(NI Act) for dishnour of cheques.

In the case on hand, the complaint was presented in person on 3rd June, 1998 and on the direction by the Magistrate, the complaint was verified on 30th July, 1998 and duly signed by the authorised officer of the company – the complainant. As rightly pointed out by the Division Bench, no prejudice has been [...]

On going through the records, we find that the issues that were raised were not discussed and dealt with by the High Court except for saying that the case is not a fit case to be interfered with. According to us, this is not a proper disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, we set aside the order and remit back the matter for fresh disposal de novo in accordance with law.

The UOI, has agreed to:   i.  Provide adequate infrastructure to DRTs/DRATs on the following basis:  a.  If sufficient space as per requirement is available in the Government building, then space from the concerned department will be allotted on a permanent basis.