An order has passed holding the issue adverse to interests of petitioner. So, prayer of petitioner for a mandamus forbearing respondents from levying, collecting or recovering GST does not arise.
Payment made by electronic cash ledger maintained by petitioner under CGST Act also amounts to payment through internet banking for SVLDRS: HC
Shrikant Phulchand Bhakkad Vs JCIT (Bombay High Court) It was seen that the issue under consideration of the office had not been examined by the assessing officer while passing the assessment order. The transactions entered into by the assessee were non genuine and were carried out with a view to avoid paying tax. The assessee […]
Whether the societies and the educational institutions (aided) run by the societies are subject to Right to Information Act, 2005?
Unichem Laboratories Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) (a) All Petitioners, through their respective units/offices registered under CGST Act and/or State Acts, as the case may be, can avail this window and file GST TRAN-1/revised GST TRAN-1 at the units/offices between 01.09.2022 to 31.10.2022 in terms of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order in […]
Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Vs Ganges International Private Limited (Madras High Court) High Court held that carry forward of service tax eligible for CENVAT in erstwhile regime cannot be denied for late payment can be denied under GST due to Transitional Period and inability of the petitioner to claim through filing FORM GST […]
Lupin Ltd Vs Union of India (Jammu & Kashmir High Court) Initially, the petitioner was declared to be eligible for exemption/budgetary support till 05.02.2023 but after the subsequent investigation, in view of the order dated 26.07.2021, the petitioner’s unit was found eligible for such benefit only upto 06.11.2017. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for […]
Ours being a Welfare State, the respondents who happen to be instrumentalities of the State under Article 12, cannot act arbitrarily or unreasonably whilst considering the claim of citizens for the grant of State largesse.
Ernst And Young U.S. LLP Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that when the original proceeding has been completed under Section 143(1), there is no need for fresh tangible material for reopening the assessment and the doctrine of change of opinion does not arise since under Section 143(1) […]
Taking into consideration Notification No. 12/2012-Cus there is no bar for availment of CENVAT Credit in terms of the Rule 3(7) where duty paid under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus and CENVAT Credit cannot be denied.
