Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) It appears quite undisputable that the petitioner had availed the facility of importing goods under advance licences without payment of duty. In some cases such advance licence were invalidated in order to procure raw material duty free from local manufacturers. Raw materials so procured were […]
NCLT Order accepting IBA Application for want of Jurisdiction post-amendment to Section 4 was quashed in the light of amendment to section 4 wherein Part II of the IBC could apply only to matters relating to insolvency and liquidation of corporate debtors, where the minimum amount of default was Rs.1 Crore.
Google Asia Pacific Pte Ltd Vs CIT (Delhi High Court) Learned counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out that withholding the rate of 10% as prescribed under the DTAA is inclusive of the applicable surcharge and cess and therefore no additional surcharge or cess is required to be imposed. This position, he submits is settled […]
CIT Vs Ramdoot Prasad Sewa Samiti (Rajasthan High Court) brief facts are that respondent-assessee is a trust registered under Section 12AA of the Act and had claimed exemption under the Act for assessment year 2012-13. The return filed by the assessee-trust was taken under scrutiny by the assessing officer. During such assessment the assessing officer […]
Polu Venkata Lakshmamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Once there is a failure of rules of natural justice, even if there is an alternative remedy, a writ is maintainable. The law is well settled. Hence, the impugned order, dated 22.12.2020 as communicated by the endorsement dated 14.12.2021 is hereby set […]
The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020, was passed in November last year. It had come into effect on January 15, 2022.The High Court observed that the core issue for consideration was whether any State can restrict employment even in the private Sector on the basis of Domicile.
Imposition of penalty is called for where the assessee fails to furnish returns by the due date, which is not the position in the present case. Admittedly, Petitioner has deposited the requisite tax for the relevant quarter of the assessment period but has inadvertently mentioned the wrong period in the challan and therefore, cannot be, in our view, saddled with the liability of penalty.
The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the E-way Bills allegedly transmitted by the petitioner in connection with the coal involved in this case are genuine and not fake. The petitioner has also produced a copy of the E-way Bill, as Annexure at page 16 which is a GSTR-1 format. He has also furnished, at page 21 to 29, the formant of GSTR-3B.
Wardwizard Innovations And Mobility Limited Vs Commissioner, SGST (Gujarat High Court) Learned AGP expressed an apprehension that even as on date, the respondent no.2 may not be in a position to give effect to the order passed by the appellate authority due to technical glitches. Mr. Sharma solicits the help of the respondent no.3 – […]
UCC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI (Bombay High Court) In the facts of this case also the respondents had issued a summons only on 30th August, 2019 i.e. after 30th June, 2019 and thus summons issued after the cut-off date of 30th June, 2019 could not be the ground for declaring the application filed by […]
