Shri Surya Traders Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court) Admittedly, the petitioner have sold the goods to two different registered dealers. The petitioner being a registered dealer have duly issued two tax invoices of the goods in question. The authorities have not disputed the issuance of tax invoices. An adverse view has been drawn […]
Subramaniyan N.N Vs. Anwar. C.K (Kerala High Court) Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 lays down the procedure to challenge the appointment of an arbitrator. True, sub-section (4) of Section 13 provides that if such a challenge is not successful, the arbitral tribunal shall continue the arbitral proceedings and […]
Kishnabhai Nathubhai Ghutia Vs Administrator Union Territory (Bombay High Court) Whether or not to declare a particular day as a public holiday or an optional holiday or no holiday at all is as a matter of government policy. There is no legally enforceable right that can be said to have been infringed. Nobody has a […]
G. Satish Kumar Vs PCIT (Karnataka High Court) Petitioner has specifically stated that his wife is suffering from liver and brain tumor and was undergoing treatment and consequently, pursuant to the notice dated 09.09.2021 passed under Section 142(1) of the IT Act, the petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 and requested granting of 30 days time […]
Ayana Pharma Limited Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Section 54 of GST Act provides that any person claiming refund of any tax and interest, if any, paid on such tax or any amount paid by him, can make an application before the expiry of two years from the relevant date in any such […]
Union of India Vs Asaid Paints Limited (Karnataka High Court) on a careful consideration of the judgments cited by the learned senior counsel and learned counsel for respondents in light of the order impugned, we find that the learned single Judge has been persuaded by the judgment passed in Adfert Technologies in coming to the […]
Bombay High Court in Saiher Supply v UOI has held that the Covid limitation suspension orders of Supreme Court apply to limitation for refund application under Section 54 of GST Act. In this case, the 1st refund application was within time. Due to issuance of deficiency memo, a fresh application had to be filed.
Sharvah Multitrade Company Private Limited Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) Bombay High Court on non application of mind by AO while recording reasons as well as by PCIT while granting approval. Passes severe strictures against AO who recorded reasons for reopening, JCIT who recommended for approval and PCIT who granted approval. High Court Asks CBDT […]
Manish Scrap Traders Vs Principal Commissioner (Gujarat High Court) The law is well-settled that a cash credit account of the assessee cannot be provisionally attached in exercise of powers under Section 83 of the CGST Act. In view of the aforesaid, this writ-application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order of provisional attachment of the […]
Barmecha Texfab Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Govt. of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017 provided that the Electronic Credit Ledger can be blocked for a period of one year. On expiry of a period of one year, it would automatically get unblocked. In fact, it was the duty of the […]
