Vainguinim Valley Resort Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The Hon’ble High Court held that there was no service provider or service receiver contract between the parties justifying the levy of service tax set aside. Matter remanded back. The Department issued show cause notice on the Petitioner demanding service tax on the amount received from […]
Vodafone Mobile Services Limited Vs Union of India (Madhya Pradesh High court) The petitioner makes a fresh application for refund of excess tax paid by the present petitioner, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law afresh. The Department rejected the refund claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner had failed […]
Calcutta High Court held that criminal proceeding initiated in null and void as the proceeding has been initiated without a sanction order from the commissioner which is a mandatory precondition.
Delhi High Court held that once it is clear that C form were issued by the registered dealer holding valid registration certificate in respect of goods sold by selling dealer. Benefit of the same cannot be denied to selling dealer.
Vaztar International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court) Rejection of application filed under SVLDRS, 2019 on the ground of ineligibility with the remark that DGGI had informed that the quantification was not done prior to 30.06.2019. The Designated committee rejected SVLDRS Form-1 on the ground that the petitioner was ineligible as […]
Bijal Dhimankumar Vyas Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) The Designated committee (DC) did not consider the amount of pre-deposit made during investigation. The High Court held that the CESTAT had granted stay to the Petitioner on the basis of payment of pre-deposit. Thus, this deposit is not in dispute. The rejection was set […]
Delhi High Court held that as per Article 7(1) of DTAA attribution of profits to Permanent Establishment arises only if foreign enterprise is making a profit. The same is not applicable if foreign enterprise is making a loss.
Section 60(5) makes it discernible that it is a provision with a non-obstante clause that ‘notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law’ gives a jurisdiction to the NCLT to entertain or dispose of any application or proceeding by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person;
Delhi High Court held that circular/ instruction no. 5051 dated 07.02.1991 states that prosecution normally be not initiated against a person who has attained the age of 70 years at the time of commission of offence. However, petitioner cannot be permitted to take benefit of Circular/ Instruction No. 5051 dated 07.02.1991 to find an escape route for the wrong committed by him.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the appellant possessed properties disproportionate to his known source of income. Accordingly, appellant is acquitted of the charge under Sections 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and hence bail granted.
