Preventive detention being drastic State action based only upon suspicion arising from a person’s past activity, can be allowed, as the settled legal position mandates, only if there is a live, causal link between a person’s past activities and the need for passing of a preventive detention order.
A careful perusal of Section 73 of the CG&ST Act in conjunction with Rule 142 makes it clear that non adherence to Rule 142 had caused prejudice to the writ petitioner qua impugned order and therefore it is a rule which necessarily needs to be adhered to,if prejudice is to be eliminated in the case on hand. In other words, it is not a mere procedural requirement but on the facts and circumstances of this case, it becomes clear that it tantamount to trampling the rights of writ petitioner.
Black and White Media India Vs Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Madras High Court) It is stated that ‘amusement’ means any amusement, for which the persons are required to make payment for admission to any amusement arcade or amusement park or theme park or the like by whatever name called. Thus, whether it […]
Faqir Chand Vs National E-Assessment Centre (Delhi High Court) this Court is of the view that final assessment order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice and draft assessment order dated 09th June, […]
Jagat Janani Services Vs Goods & Service Tax Council (Orissa High Court) Service tax recovered in excess of amount approved by resolution plan is to be refunded by GST department In M/s. Jagat Janani Services v. Goods & Service Tax Council and Others [W.P.(C) No.17196 of 2020 dated September 21, 2021], M/s. Jagat Janani Services […]
Ahinsha Chemicals Ltd Vs Union of India (Gauhati High Court) In the instant case, it is the case of the petitioner that the requirement of requesting for fixation of a special rate in respect of the value addition to the manufactured goods had arisen only after the final judgment of the Supreme Court on 22.04.2020, […]
Vikas Bansal Vs UOI (Gauhati High Court) It is found that in his statement, recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, the petitioner has subscribed to the statement of aforesaid Amit Kumar made before the Senior Intelligence Officer of the CGST. It has also come out from his statement that whatever coal he had […]
A person is exempted from the requirement of registration if he is engaged in supplying only those goods and services which are exempt from registration and does not supply any other goods or services. If such a person deals in any other goods or services, he will not be eligible for such exemption.
No. 1 World Wide Express Pvt Ltd. Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) In the present case there was a reference to a unilateral declaration of liability by the petitioner and not a quantification of demand by the Revenue in the letter/notice dated 20.11.2018 and therefore, the same does not make the petitioner eligible […]
Rules 3(2)(b) and 4(2)(c) of the Rules of 2020 prescribing a minimum experience of not less than 20 years for appointment of President and Members of State Commission and experience of not less than 15 years for appointment of Presidents and Members of District Commission, are unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
