Pooja Cotspin Limited Vs State of Himachal (Himachal Pradesh High Court) The first proviso to Section 62(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 enables the State to issue notification and allow any dealer to avail of any incentive on tax, if such incentive has been declared by the State before the commencement […]
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited Vs Controller General of Patents Designs And Trademarks (Delhi High Court) HC held that in view of the fact that the office of the CGPDTM was represented before this Court by two senior officials, namely, Mr. Sachin Sharma and Mr. Juneja, who did not disclose to this Court or to their […]
Section 6(2)(a) of the CGST Act mandates that where any proper officer under the CGST Act issues an order, he shall also issue an order under the SGST Act or the UTGST Act as authorized under those Acts, as the case may be, under intimation to the jurisdictional officer of the State tax or the Union territory Tax. Clause (2) of sub section (2) of Section 6 of the CGST Act/UPGST Act mandates that where a proper officer under the SGST Act or the UTGST Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject-matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under the CGST Act on the same subject-matter.
Avatar Petro Chemicals Private Limited Vs Goods and Service Tax Council (Madras High Court) There is no provision under the provisions of the respective GST enactments for lapsing of the input tax credit and the credit availed on capital goods under the respective enactments. These credits are indefeasible. They were meant for being used for […]
CIT-LTU Vs Lakshmi General Finance Ltd (Merged with Sundaram Finance Limited) (Madras High Court) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on the windmills even though the wind mills had not generated any electricity during the […]
In absence of there being any payment of rent or even deemed rent by the Respondents to OPTCL there was no obligation under Section 194-I of the IT Act to deduct TDS from the wheeling charges paid to OPTCL.
Shree Radhekrushna Ginning And Pressing Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) HC explains that Attachment creates no charge or lien upon the attached property. It merely prevents and avoids private alienations; it does not confer any title on the attaching creditors. There is nothing in any of the provisions of the Code […]
Narsingh Ispat Limited Vs Union of India (Jharkhand High Court) Whether liability of interest under section 50 of the GST Act could be raised without initiating any adjudication proceeding either under section 73 or 74 of JGST Act in the event Assessee raising a dispute towards liability of interest. It has been held that if […]
Sreejith K. Vs State Of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) It has been brought to the notice of High Court that the requisite amount towards tax and penalty aggregating to 9,55,840/- [Rupees Nine Lac Fifty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Only] has already been deposited by the supplier i.e. M/s. Izaan Trading; the writ-applicant of the […]
Milap Scrap Traders Through Pro. Harshadbhai Manubhai Patel Vs State/Commercial Tax Officer (Gujarat High Court) High Court held that the condition precedent for exercise of power under Rule 86A of the GST Rules is the availability of credit in the electronic credit ledger which is alleged to be ineligible. If credit balance is available, then […]
