Mags Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India And Others (Himachal Pradesh High Court) Having gone through the contents of the Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Service Tax regime especially in the light of Tax which accrues to the Central Government under Central Goods and Service Act, 2017 and Integrated Goods and Services […]
It is settled law that inordinate delay (17 Years in this case) in adjudication results into denial of principles of natural justice and such violation cannot be overlooked by any authority.
Proper Officer has allowed major of part of Transitional Credit, disallowing only minor part of total claim & imposed 100% penalty on disallowed credit because of ineligible claim by invoking Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017.
Delhi High Court held that import of firearms is not prohibited the Arms Act and also there is no restriction that import is permissible only if the parts cannot be manufactured locally. Accordingly, it was directed to release the goods so imported.
Jammu Kashmir High Court held that person aggrieved by the order of confirmation of provisional attachment made by the Adjudicating Authority is well within his/her right to file appeal u/s. 26 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 within this period of ten days and may persuade the Appellate Authority to intervene in the matter.
Sodexo India Services Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) 1. Petitioner is impugning four orders all dated 13th April 2022 passed by respondent no.3 in the appeals that petitioner had filed. 2 Petitioner had, as required under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35F of the Central Excise […]
Delhi High Court held that a suit, which contemplates urgent interim relief, is excluded from the rigor of Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Thus, a plaintiff seeking to institute a suit involving urgent interim relief(s) is not required to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation.
Sanjay Chadha Trading As M/S Eveready Tools Emporium Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) A well known mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of Trademarks Act cannot be allowed to be infringed Conclusion: Delhi High Court dismissed appeals and restrained appellant from using word ‘EVEREADY’, as the same is a well-known mark due to […]
Delhi High Court restrained Respondents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, importing, exporting or in any manner dealing with products infringing the Subject Design under the Designs Act, 2000 for the main reason that a mere trade variant which is a combination of known designs would not be entitled to protection under the provisions of the Designs Act
Gujarat High Court held that the activity of dairy business cannot be construed as agricultural activity under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
