Vikas Chaudhary Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Having noted the relevant extracts of both the OM dated 27.10.2010 and the OM dated 05.12.2017, I may deal with the first issue as to whether the Court can interfere with the issuance of a Look Out Circular (LOC). In my view, even though the respondents […]
Futurist Innovation & Advertising Vs Union of India And Others (Bombay High Court) Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Radha Krishan Industries (supra) has dealt with this issue in detail and has approved the decision taken by Gujarat High Court in case of Valerius Industries Vs. Union of India. It is held by the Hon’ble […]
Utkarsh Ispat LLP Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) In the case on hand, HC do not approve the provisional attachment of the goods, stock and receivables, more particularly, when the entire stock and receivables have been pledged and a floating charge has been created in favour of the Kalupur Commercial Bank Limited for […]
This Court in the judgment in the case of Thought Blurb (supra) accordingly reiterated the principles laid down by this Court in case of Capgemini Technology Services Limited (supra) and also followed the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court in case of Vaishali Sharma vs. Union of India and held that a liberal interpretation has to be given to the scheme as its intent is to unload the baggage relating to legacy disputes under central excise and service tax and to allow the business to make a fresh beginning.
Governor, RBI Vs Velankani Information Systems Limited (Karnataka High Court) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, respondent No.1 herein had availed the term loan facilities from respondent Nos.5 to 7. Respondent No.1 herein claiming to be the owner and operator of Five Star Hotel and Technology Park had approached the writ Court […]
Abrar Kazi Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) It is true that if a player indulges in match fixing, a general feeling will arise that he has cheated the lovers of the game. But, this general feeling does not give rise to an offence. The match fixing may indicate dishonesty, indiscipline and mental corruption […]
Additional Director General Vs Hazel Mercantile Ltd (Gujarat High Court) t appears from the materials on record that the respondent No.1 herein imported goods declaring the same to be ‘Naphtha’ classified under CTH 27101229. The goods were imported at the Kandla Port vide the Bills of Entry. It appears that the respondent No.2 herein – […]
It is trite that the deficiencies in the investigation or incorrect demand in the first show cause notice cannot be made good in the second show cause notice and subsequent show cause notice alleging suppression of facts again is not reasonable since repeated issuance of notices would result in revisiting the concluded proceedings and reopening of the proceedings at any point of time.
HC quashed the order of the Appellate Authority refusing the appeal filed by the assessee on the wrong GST portal. Further held that, uploading of an appeal may be before the wrong portal, but it is obligatory on the part of the authorities concerned in such an event to bring it to the notice of the assessee that the appeal has been filed before the wrong authority so that the necessary action can be taken.
Tata Sons Private Limited Vs Hakunamatata Tata Founders (Delhi High Court) The plaintiff is a company incorporated in India. Though the plaint avers that documents showing involvement of the plaintiff, its subsidiaries and group companies in financial services including crypto currency, have been filed with the plaint, the documents with the plaint do not indicate […]
