A K Enterprise Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) HC clarified that even pending the Appeals, it shall be open for the writ applicant herein being the owner of the goods and the applicant of the Civil Application being the owner of the conveyance to prefer an appropriate application for the provisional release of […]
It is now brought to my notice that the petitioner has made certain adhoc payments pending investigation as a consequence of which the attachment of the bank account of the petitioner i.e. Mutharamman Iron and Steels has been lifted. Thus, the challenge to the provisional attachment does not survive any longer and recording the aforesaid, this writ petition is closed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
Divesh Prakashchand Jain Vs PCIT (Bombay High Court) We have perused the notice as well as the order passed by Respondent No.1 and in our view, there is no case made out for transferring Petitioner’s case to Bengaluru. Under Section 127(2) of the Act, where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case […]
Considering the object of Section 138 of the NI Act, which is mainly to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility of transacting business through cheque as also taking into account the provisions of Section 147 which states that every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. Further, it is mainly a transaction between the private parties where the State is not affected.
HC quashed the decision of Disciplinary Board of the ICAI against the Chartered Accountant alleged of committing of misconduct. Held that, the complaint filed is undoubtedly incomplete and cannot be relied upon and was not enquired properly and by following the established principles of law. Further, held that complaints made to the Disciplinary Authority shall be enquired in all aspects with an unbiased behaviour before passing an order and the reasons for forming any opinion is of paramount importance in an enquiry proceedings.
Sirpur Paper Mills Limited Vs Union of India (Telangana High Court) Insofar carry forward of losses and adjustments against future profits are concerned, the same is provided by Clause 17.7 (c) of the resolution plan. However, as and when such carry forward and set off is claimed by the petitioner in future, i.e. beyond the […]
Colgate Global Business Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) A Perusal of the impugned Order indicates that the Respondent No.3 has rejected the application for refund without recording any reasons, though the same is mandatory under Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. In our view, the […]
In view of absence of documentary evidence, and the findings and discussion hereinabove, the Petitioner cannot be granted MEIS benefit merely on the basis of pleadings which are prima facie insufficient on the face of record. Hence the Petition must fail.
Shekar B.S. Vs Chief General Manager, Syndicate Bank (Karnataka High Court) Bank’s justification is, petitioner has not opted for switchover to a new system. The fact remains that bank has reduced the rate of interest from 11.75% to 8.25% with effect from 24.01.2017. It is a housing loan. The stand taken by the bank that […]
Kamalesh Sen Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) It is noticed from Ext.P8, that the respondent has given a reason for initiating proceedings under Section 130. The correctness or otherwise of the said reason is not a matter which can be considered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, […]
