Petitioners could not be faulted if the suppliers appeared to be fake later on. Petitioners further submit that they have paid the amount of purchases in question as well as tax on the same not in cash and all transactions were through banks and petitioners are helpless if at some point of time after the transactions were over,
Dinesh Agarwal Vs ACIT (Calcutta High Court) Considering these facts, HC was of the considered view that this case clearly falls under the amended Act relating to proceedings under section 147 of the Act under which issuance of notice under section 148A of the Act is mandatory before issuing any notice under section 148 of […]
Armstrong Pure Water Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Petitioner should have been proactive and promptly communicated the stay granted by this Court to the Assessing Officer so that he would have had enough time to make enquiries with his Advocate and also check on the website about orders passed. In […]
Unique Engineers Vs Commissioner Commercial Tax Lko (Allahabad High Court) Admittedly, the revisionist manufactured ‘AT-PLAST’ which are being used in mixing of ready mix concrete / concrete and it has been averred by the revisionist that the said product are being used along with concrete for reducing the uses of water, delay the time of […]
G & C Infra Innovations Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court) Kerala High Court Directs GST Dept. To Facilitate Revision Of Form GST TRAN-1 By Making Necessary Arrangements On The Portal. Genuine mistake in filling Form GST TRAN-1 should not prevent the assessee from claiming legitimate credit The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in M/s […]
It is settled law that exclusion or inclusion of one or other comparable would by itself not constitute a question of law unless it is shown that there are important functional dissimilarities or vital material facts which go to the root of profitability or where other material circumstances are involved.
Docland Services Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Goods And Services Tax (Delhi High Court) The petitioner’s main grievance is, that because of a technical glitch, the necessary steps for availing benefits under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 [ Scheme] could not be availed of. Mr Bhatia says, even though the petitioner under […]
PCIT Vs Madhur Mittal (Delhi High Court) The scope of jurisdiction in Section 260A is very well settled. It is a settled proposition that ITAT is the final arbiter of the facts. High Court can interfere in the order of the ITAT only if there is substantial question of law or there is manifest illegality […]
Madhav Copper Limited Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Mr. Bairagar, the learned AGP, wants the writ applicant to apply for revocation of the cancellation of registration in the requisite Form GST REG 21 Online at the GST common portal in accordance with the provisions of Section 30 of the GGST Act read with […]
RIT Foundation Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court bench differed members differed in their views while hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the exception to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which exempts forceful sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife from the offence of rape and […]
