United Processors Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court) It is brought to notice by the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent that the Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil nadu -vs- Tex-in-Printers (Order dated 04.10.2013 in Tax Case (Revision) No. 49 of 2009) has reiterated that after introduction of Section […]
The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement Vs A. Raja & Ors (Delhi High Court) 1. The application Crl.M.A. 10885/2020 is filed by respondent No.17- M/s Conwood Construction & Developers (P) Ltd. and Crl.M.A. 12520/2020 is filed by respondent No.15- M/s Dynamix Realty. The applicants are seeking modification of the ex parte ad interim order dated […]
Dr. Malabika Bhattacharjee Vs Internal Complaints Committe, Vivekananda College & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) A cursory glance at Section 2(m) of the posh 2013 Act shows that the term ‘respondent’ brings within its fold ‘a person’, thereby including persons of all genders. Although there is substance in the submission of the petitioner that the said […]
The present writ petitions have been filed challenging orders issued by respondent authority whereby the penalty demand of Rs.293,28,50,153 for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11 stayed subject to payment of 20% of the said amount.
HC has quashed a notice and blocking of input tax credit under rule 86A whereby the credit was blocked for more than one year. Rule 86A does not empower the department to block the credit for more than one year and they are bound to unblock it even if the assessment has not taken place or got completed within one year.
It would appear that, in the meanwhile, between the date of apprehending the goods at the parcel office and the date on which the order of detention was passed, the e-way bill had already been updated by filling the Part B thereof. This is evident from Ext.P6 that is produced along with the writ petition.
The Gujarat High Court ruled that Termination of service of an employee for misconduct, even if on a fixed term, would require a domestic enquiry. However the Court held that on reinstatement the tenure of employment would not extend beyond the period of appointment.
Bombay High Court held that, the commencement of adjudication proceedings after inordinate delay of 13 years post-issuance of Show Cause Notices is untenable in law and any consequential decision or order based on such adjudication proceeding is therefore, held to be invalid.
Kailashi Devi Vs Branch Manager And Another (Allahabad High Court) Private financial institutions, carrying of business or commercial activity, may be performing public duties, but cannot be considered to be covered under the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition against such entity is not maintainable before the […]
The insurance service provided by the Deposit Insurance Corporation to the banks is an ‘input service’ and CENVAT credit of service tax paid for this service received by the banks from the Deposit Insurance Corporation can be availed by the banks for rendering ‘output services’.
