Asahi India Glass Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) Petitioner has been denied ‘C’ forms on the ground that natural gas purchased by it in the course of inter-state sale is used for manufacturing of float glass which is not covered by the definition of goods under section 2(d) of the CST Act. […]
SRF Limited Vs Commissioner of VAT (Delhi High Court) Petitioner approached DVAT Department, Delhi vide letter dated 22-04-2018 to seek permission to amend the revised return so as to enable it to download Forms F for the Quarter ending 31-03-2016. He points out that October, 2019 was written by the petitioner, the impugned order was […]
The Status of Kerala Vs Mohammad Sheref (Kerala high court) It has to be borne in mind that in the case of an interstate transaction the applicable statute is the IGST Act and the power of detention is exercised by virtue of the provisions of Section 20 of the IGST Act read with Section 129 […]
From close scrutiny of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act, it is axiomatic that an amount payable towards interest, royalty, fee for technical services or other sums chargeable under this Act shall not be deducted while computing the income under the head profit and gain of business or profession on which tax is deductible at source; but such tax has not been deducted.
Personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses and clear up his doubts during the course of the arguments, and the party appearing to persuade the authority by reasoned argument to accept his point of view. If one person hears and another decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. We therefore hold that the said procedure followed in this case also offends another basic principle of judicial procedure.
Okram Ibobi Singh Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Manipur High Court) Petitioner is the Ex-Chief Minister of the State and it is not as if he will run away from the prosecution, if any, initiated against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, explicitly stated that the petitioner would extend […]
Agarwal Industries Pvt Ltd Vs The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST) (IV) (Andhra Pradesh High Court) No penalty for mere mismatch in invoice number mentioned in tax invoice with e-way bill Detention of goods under section 129(1) of the CGST Act – mismatch in invoice number mentioned in tax invoice with e-way bill – clerical error […]
It is seen that the reason for detention was that the route described in the e-way bill did not match with the route by which the goods were actually being transported. It is therefore that the stand of the respondent that the transportation of the goods was not supported by a valid e-way bill.
A. Y. Trading Company Vs Director General of GST Intelligence (Madhya Pradesh High Court- Indore Bench) This Court, in light of the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time, as in similar circumstances the apex Court directed that the advocate of the petitioner should be allowed to be present during the interrogation […]
Where assessee was the Managing Director of ITNL when all the 10 alleged bogus contracts were awarded therefore, assessee’s knowledge and involvement in the alleged awarding of contracts could not be ruled out. Indeed, the Investigating Officer had interrogated the assessee twice, however looking at the gravity of the offence and the aspect of pending investigation relating to finding out the real beneficiaries of the siphoned off money, this Court found itself in disagreement with the submission that no more interrogation in custody was required. Accordingly, the assessee’s bail application was dismissed on account of involvement of huge money laundering .
