HC observed that against judgment of High Court of Delhi in case of Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., appeal is pending before Supreme Court solely on the point of limitation. Thus, prima facie, Revenue has impliedly conceded that pre-consultation is mandatory.
Innovative Antares Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Rejects Revenues contention that the payment could not be made beyond 30.06.2020 (due date). Rejects Revenues contention that the SVLDR Scheme is over The petitioner was a trader and service provider. It filed declaration under the SVLDR Scheme. The Form 3 was issued calling […]
Badal Bhupatrai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat allows anticipatory bail application, accepting the contention that: (i) directors of the company cannot be prosecuted in absence of a statutory provision; (ii) company has been wound up under section 433 and 434 of the companies act and hence, […]
KEC International Ltd. Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) The Hon’ble High Court held that once the money has been received by the State Government, credit has to be given to the petitioner. It is for the KSEB to clarify how the payment was made to the State Government and the petitioner cannot be […]
HP Adhesives Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay high court) The Petitioner applied under the SVLDRS Scheme. The application was rejected on the ground that redemption fine is not covered under section 125 of the SVLDR Scheme. Accordingly, the petition was filed against such rejection. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay set aside such rejection […]
The department had challenged the order passed by Tribunal, Mumbai wherein, the tribunal, inter alia, held that the activity of digital offset and offset printing amounts to manufacture and the same is classifiable under heading chapter 4911 of the Central Excise Tariff.
HC lambasts AO for passing order which shows total non application of mind and not granting opportunity of hearing to petitioner in violation of section 75(4) of CGST Act.
SC held that the activity of digital offset and offset printing amounts to manufacture and same is classifiable under heading chapter 4911 of Central Excise Tariff.
HC issues notice on the challenge to the vires of Rule 118 being contrary to section 142(11)(c) of the CGST Act. The petitioner contends no such condition in the statute. The transitional provision is for smooth transition into the new taxation regime and intends to avoid double taxation.
Consideration as defined under Indian contract Act is different from Finance Act. Consideration has to be for provision of service and not forfeiture.
