Petitioner contended that in terms of the provisions contained in Goods and Service Tax Act no goods and services tax is leviable on the amount of royalty paid for undertaking mining operations in respect of minor minerals.
Giant Construction Company Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) The petitioner assails the communication dated 21.04.2022 by which the objections raised by the petitioner to the reopening of the assessment were rejected. The petitioner asserts that the impugned communication is in contravention of the amended Section 148-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Upon the insertion […]
Commissioner of CGST Vs Narbada Industries (Jammu & Kashmir High Court) That no refund can be ordered against a party, if that party has not been unjustly enriched or when it has acquired the benefit lawfully. Since the assessee have got the benefit of refund lawfully under the prevailing law, they cannot be directed to […]
Restrained the defendants from offering or advertising any goods or services, using or registering corporate names, domain names or pages bearing the trademarks BURGER KING, BK and/ or any mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trademarks.
Final order in the re-assessment proceedings is yet to be passed. Hence, the writ petition itself was premature and no relief could be granted thereof.
The compensation for medical expenses is a matter of reimbursement and hence once the insurance company has chosen to compensate the victim of road accident for medical expenses, the same cannot be once again claimed under the Motor Vehicles Act
The Arbitral Tribunal had thus, articulated the terms of appointment unequivocally and unambiguously. It had made it clear to the parties that its appointment and the proceedings before them would not be governed by ICADR Rules. Accordingly, arbitral tribunal is not bound by ICADR rules for fixation of the fees
It was clear, therefore, that till such time the purchase order was issued pursuant to such acceptance of the offer made by the Petitioner, there was no completed ‘contract’. Consequently, Clause-6.34.1 would not get attracted.
Bhagwan Singh Vs State of Himachal (Himachal High Court) It is concluded that SARFAESI Act and RDB Act shall have overriding effect to provisions of HPVAT Act. Hence, the said property is to be permitted to be transferred in favour of petitioners free from all encumbrances in terms of E-aution. Facts- Petitioners are purchasers of […]
This criminal case is filed by the Official Liquidator under section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956 as the accused persons did not file statement of affairs within the stipulated time.
