Gail (India) Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Section 67(5) of Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax, 2005 pellucidly tells that authority for clarifications shall have the power to review, amend or revoke its rulings at any time for good and sufficient cause by giving an opportunity to the affected parties. It says […]
Petitioner made representation to Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, to request GST Council to include the petrol and diesel in the GST regime and till a decision is taken by the GST Council, Government of Kerala may refrain from levying the state tax on petrol and diesel.
The income that has actually accrued to the Respondent is taxable. What income has really occurred to be decided, not by reference to physical receipt of income, but by the receipt of income in reality.
Central Goods and Service Tax Delhi East Vs Sh. Naval Kumar & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Allegation 1. M/s Milkfood Limited is at the center of this network and has availed huge ITC from firms that have been proved to be fictitious and non-existent during the investigation carried out by the petitioner. 2. It is […]
Sree Balaji Medical College & Hospital Vs State of Tamil Nadu (Madras High Court) W.P.No.22677 of 2012 is filed for Declaration to declare that the professional services rendered by the Doctors of petitioner’s Medical College Hospital under the nature of diagnostic services on X-Ray Films, CT Scan Films, MRI Films and supply of medical gases […]
The order of provisional attachment was not a final order and assessee had a remedy to raise all the pleas including that of jurisdiction of attaching authority and discrimination before the Adjudicating Authority and in the event these points were raised by assessee before the adjudicating authority, the authority should pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
St. Joseph Tea Company Ltd. Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) The recipients of the petitioner under its provisional registration (ID) for the period from 01.07.20217 to 09.07.2018 shall not be denied ITC only on the ground that the transaction is not reflected in GSTR 2A. It will be open for the GST functionaries […]
Dharmendra M. Jani Vs Union of India And Others (Bombay High Court) GST – Constitutionality of section 13(8)(b) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – While as per the opinion of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan the provision of section 13(8)(b) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 related to Itermediary Services […]
High Court had refused to grant anticipatory bail to assessee-journalists who being accused of cheating depositors through Ponzi schemes as assessee had been indicted in an economic offence which was of serious in nature and the larger angle of conspiracy with regard to patronage of political and other persons in growth of such ponzi firms were required to be unearthed, no effective investigation could be made by the police by enlarging assessee on pre-arrest bail, even if he was ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation by remaining on pre-arrest bail.
Prime facie, there are serious and specific allegations leveled against the petitioner in the FIR in question for which her custodial interrogation would be imperative, more so, since she allegedly removed crucial documents having a direct link with the proceedings, which were pending against her and her husband under the CGST Act.
