Held that distinct commercial product Robinson Barley and Purity Barley cannot be classified as cereal. Hence taxable under residual entry @12% under Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.
Held that impugned award set aside as the same was passed rejecting the counter claim, which was duly filed within the time limit, as being time barred.
BCCI is a ‘shop’ for the purposes of applicability of the ESI Act as activities of the BCCI can be said to be systematic commercial activities providing entertainment by selling tickets etc.
Eanokaran Anthony Tony Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court) Held that disqualification of the director under section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 for failure to submit returns with respect to a dissolved company is untenable in law. Facts- Petitioner was the Director of a company named Margin Free Kuries Private Ltd. As the […]
Held that bill of entry was self-assessed before the notification no. 103/2020- Customs (N.T.) dated 29.10.2020 was issued. Accordingly, revised rate of duty not applicable.
Held that disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) unsustainable as the amount of employees’ contribution to the provident fund deposited before filing of return.
Arbitrary exercise of power cancelling the GST registration in the manner in which it has been done has not only adversely affected the petitioner, but has also adversely affected the revenues that could have flown to the coffers of GST
Debabrata Santra Vs Assistant Commissioner of Revenue (Calcutta High Court) Calcutta High Court allows refiling of Appeal with Appellate Authority which was dismissed for non filing of certified copy of order FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the […]
Sanskruthi Motors Vs Joint Commissioner (Kerala High Court) Held that the officer was duty bound to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner for the expiry of the e-way bill. Hence, imposition of penalty/ tax on allegation that there was ample time to revalidate the e-way bill not justified as there was no finding of […]
Held that absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of driver to drive, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either insured/ third parties, to avoid liability towards insured. Insurer has to prove that insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care.
