The Central Government has the power to lay down the principles for taxation on mechanically propelled vehicles by the State. The Central Government may lay down the principles by enacting a law or by subordinate legislation
Kerala High Court held that there is no need for issuance of separate notification for cross-empowerment for authorising state GST officials as proper officer for the purpose CGST Act. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
NCLAT Delhi held that unilateral revocation of guarantee by the guarantor does not absolve him from his obligations under the guarantee agreement as the Financial Creditor has not agreed to such revocation.
NCLAT Chennai held that a right to judicial remedies is a right which is safeguarded by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, deprival of remedies available under Article 21 is unjustifiable and hence it is directed to revive back the company petition.
NCLAT Delhi held that resolution professional whose resolution plan was once rejected by the Committee of Creditors [CoC] is free to participate in fresh process initiated by fresh Form G for inviting Expression of Interest.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that denial of Foreign Tax Credit [FTC] on the ground that corresponding income has not been offered for tax in the year under appeal is not justifiable. Accordingly, FTC allowed.
Madras High Court held that VAT tax liability imposed on deceased petitioner and his wife based on Form F containing forged signature of deceased petitioner and his wife is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, petition allowed.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. has held that the NCLT cannot exercise its jurisdiction over matters dehors the insolvency proceedings since such matters would fall outside the realm of IBC.
Allahabad High Court held that imposition of penalty under section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act [CST Act] in absence of mens rea is untenable in law. Accordingly, order of penalty is liable to be quashed.
Madras High Court held that passing of attachment order and debit for amount of arrears inspite of pending appeal is not justified. Accordingly, departmental officer directed to refund the amount.
