Delhi High Court held that in terms of rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, when the Tribunal has ex-parte disposed of the appeal on merits and thereafter the appellant appears, the Tribunal shall set aside the ex-parte order and restore the appeal if sufficient cause is shown.
CESTAT Delhi held that to maintain judicial discipline, the Assistant Commissioner had necessarily to implement the decision of the Tribunal. Denial of refund pursuant thereto is unjustifiable.
NCLAT Delhi held that striking off of the companies name due to default in submitting of a statutory record because of some internal disputes among the shareholders and management is unsustainable in law.
Madras High Court held that rectification petition filed after 5 years under Section 84(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 from the date of assessment order is unwarranted in law.
If you have been charged with a crime in Williamson County, Texas, you could face fines, probation, and even jail time. Aside from these direct consequences, you may also be at risk of losing your job, losing custody of your children, and having a permanent criminal record.
ITAT Bangalore held that applicability of the proviso to 2(15) of the Act cannot be on the basis of the default of the parties in not participating in the proceedings but should be on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. Accordingly, matter remanded for fresh consideration.
Jharkhand High Court held that denying migration of unadjusted TDS amount under JVAT Act (Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act) to JGST (Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) is not sustainable in the eye of law.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is just a procedure and procedural lapse cannot be ground to deny the substantial benefit of Cenvat Credit.
CESTAT Delhi held that exemption from special additional duty (SAD) of customs under the Notification No. 21/2012-CUS dated 17.03.2012 is not available on import of parts of articles of jewellery.
CESTAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty under rule 25 of CER 2002 merely on the basis of statements without supporting evidences is untenable in law.
