Calcutta High Court held that registered person is entitled to Input Tax Credit only if conditions prescribed u/s. 16(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are fulfilled. It includes time limit imposed via section 16(4). Accordingly, held that section 16(4) is not violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Bombay High Court held that department should permit to correct any bonafide, inadvertent error incurred while furnishing details in Form GSTR-1 particularly when department is aware that there is no loss of revenue.
Madras High Court dismisses a writ petition, emphasizing that a show cause notice is not a denial of hearing. Get insights on the case – Lakshmi Jalladianpettai Lakshmanan Vs ITO
Bombay HC ruling on ITC refund under Rule 89(4). Detailed analysis of Sine Automation case, circulars, and legal insights. Learn about permissible period clubbing.
Since on every occasion the student had diligently sought permission from the Respondent to pursue the course and on every occasion, the student had been permitted to pursue the course. When time came to register her as a Member of the Council to practice as a Chartered Accountant, the Respondent wanted to put the clock back by four years tinkering with the permissions that were already granted from time to time, therefore, High Court issued a mandamus to ICAI to consider addressing the grievance of Petitioner in accordance with law and enrolling her as a Member of the Institute bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.
Patna High Court allows appeal under Amnesty Scheme with pre-deposit from Electronic Credit Ledger, stating it’s maintainable. Decision amid Supreme Court stay on conflicting judgment.
Delhi High Court held that Godaddy.com (appellant) had granted rights in or transferred the right to use its domain to a third party. Therefore, the fee received by Godaddy.com for registration of domain name of third parties cannot be treated as royalty.
Patna High Court held that penalty is imposable under section 56(4)(b) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (Bihar VAT Act) on account of clerical mistake in mentioning of invoice number in SUVIDHA Form.
Madras High Court directs Revenue Department to refund excess tax as per the original refund order, stating it has no power to re-adjudicate or re-quantify.
Bombay High Court held that one cannot tax the amount having not accrued and not been received by the assessee on an assumption and presumption that in the future, the Small Causes Court will at least order the said sum in favour of the Appellant.
