Advantage Strategic Consulting Private Limited Vs PCIT (Madras High Court) Transfer Order passed under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is more in the nature of an administrative order rather than quasi-judicial order and the Assessee cannot have any right to choose his Assessing Authority, as no prejudice can be said to have […]
Libra International Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax (Allahabad High Court) A combined reading of subrules (5), (6) and (7) of Rule 142 of the Rules, 2017, indicate that a mechanism is provided for uploading summary of certain specified orders, including the order issued under Section 129 in FORM GST DRC07, specifying therein the amount […]
Maintenance of Parents & Senior Citizens Act- DM to ensure the protection of life and property of senior citizens to enable them to live with security and dignity
Government Department cannot be permitted to be a voluntary litigant in the Constitutional Courts especially to challenge the orders of the learned Single Judge without any valid rhyme or reason.
GST authorities are allowed to initiate inquiry proceedings under Section 70 of CGST Act, 2017 collaterally with the proceedings under section 6(2)(b) as prohibition of Section 6(2)(b) of the C.G.S.T. Act shall come into play only when any proceeding on the same subject-matter has already been initiated by a proper officer under the U.P.G.S.T. Act and therefore, proper officer under the U.P.G.S.T. Act or the C.G.S.T. Act may invoke power under Section 70 in any inquiry.
Singh Traders Vs Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Allahabad High Court) The contention, in brief, is that the petitioner is registered dealer having a valid registration. The petitioner alleges that the Respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 15.3.2018 under Section 129 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short ‘the Act’) […]
Shrikant Mohta Vs Republic of India (Orissa High Court) Conclusion: There had been no substantial change in circumstances after rejection of the last bail application of assessee by the court in January this year and subsequent dismissal of his SLP by the Supreme Court in February. Further, huge number of documents had been seized and […]
Airlink Communication Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Mr. Ankit Shah, learned counsel for the respondent – Department has only submitted that according to the instructions received and as stated in the affidavit in reply since the subsequent quantification which the Department treats as final qualification being later in point of time […]
Bhagwat Joshi @ Shankar Lal Joshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court) Condition for grant of bail should not be stringent, as it would violate accused right of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT “The delicate light of the law favours release […]
Chennai Port trust was not eligible for exemption under Section 29(a) of the Urban Land Tax Act as it did not produce any evidence to prove that the Lands were owned by the Central Government and that the Madras Dock Labour Board was only the ostensible owner. Indeed, the evidence on record indicated that the Madras Dock Labour Board was both the ostensible and real owner and the Lands were assessed to urban land tax and that the Madras Dock Labour Board paid urban land tax as and when demanded. Moreover, the Board Circular dated 30.06.1976 expressly provided that lands owned by the Madras Port Trust would not be eligible for the exemption under Section 29(a).
