Dilliraj Vs Deputy Director (Madras High Court) HC held that we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the Enforcement Directorate that the salaries and perquisites that were paid to Dilliraj (A.1) while he was in employment with FLCI would amount to proceeds of crime and any property purchased with that would stand tainted. […]
R. Viswanathan Vs Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement (Madras High Court) From a reading of Section 2(u) of the PML Act which defines the expression “proceeds of crime”, it is limpid that the profit derived or obtained must be a result of a criminal activity which relates to a schedule offence. Even if we take […]
Dilipkumar P. Chheda Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) In so far the present case is concerned, here also the additions have been made primarily on the basis of the statement made by Shri. Nilesh Bharani and also on the basis of certain entries in the telephone diary. However, we find from the materials on record […]
Jay Ushin Limited Vs Union of India ( Rajasthan High Court) Assessee was not entitled to carry forward and set off of unutilised Education Cess, Secondary and Higher Education Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess against the GST Output Liability with reference to Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT […]
High Court held that even if the assessee is engaged in the category of activity of ‘object of general public utility’, they are entitled for registration under Section 12A. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee can claim registration under Section 12A by categorising the activity of the assessee as ‘object of general public utility’.
Mukul Mittal Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Delhi High Court) The petitioner has been in custody now for 56 days. The maximum sentence provided for the offence alleged against the petitioner is imprisonment for a period of five years, therefore the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is required to take congnizance on the complaint is […]
In the present case, the petitioner has, admittedly, remitted amounts of Rs.66.05 and Rs.16.58 lakhs as deposits even prior to the issuance of show cause notice. However, the petitioner has specifically demarcated the amount of Rs.66.05 lakhs as towards tax and Rs.16.58 lakhs as towards interest.
The Principal Commissioner Of Customs, Mundra Vs LYKIS Limited (Gujarat High Court) From the above Section, it is clear that no time limit is prescribed. We find that the request of the appellant for conversion was rejected on the sole ground of limitation as prescribed under Board Circular No. 36/2010 Cus. We find that since […]
Naresh Mittal & 2. Chhedi Lal Mittal Vs DGGI (Patiala House Court) The facts are not being repeated for the sake of brevity. This is the first bail application jointly moved on behalf of accused persons namely, Naresh Mittal and Chhedi Lal Mittal after the filing of complaint by the Department. It is submitted that […]
Hash Constructions Vs Deputy Commissioner (Kerala High Court) Conclusion: Despite receipt of assessment order under Section 62, assessee-registered person had not filed any valid return within 30 days from the receipt of the assessment order. This ultimately had resulted in issuance of demand notice in FORM GST DRC-07, mentioning the amount due and payable by […]
