Delhi High Court held that the respondent organizing trade fairs at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi is liable to pay entertainment tax. Accordingly, order passed by Financial Commissioner setting aside levy of entertainment tax held unsustainable.
Allahabad High Court held that argument regarding no intention to avoid payment of tax not whispered in the writ petition. Hence, held that the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue the case without there being any pleading in support of his arguments.
Allahabad High Court held that for imposition of penalty under section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [CGST Act] intention to evade payment of tax is a pre-requisite. No penalty u/s 129(3) as there was no intent on part of petitioner to evade tax.
Discover how Gauhati High Court’s ruling on delayed assessment order notification affects their validity. Explore case of Vishal Udyog vs. State of Assam.
Madras High Court held that the product Aluminium Foil Container is classifiable under 7615 with GST 12%. Accordingly, demand of GST claiming that product is classifiable under 7067 @18% tax is unsustainable in law.
Allahabad High Court held that GST is not chargeable on premium and lease rent on plots allotted to hospital against lease granted for more than 30 years. Accordingly, communication demanding deposit of GST liable to be quashed.
Delhi High Court held that refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) in respect of telecommunication services rendered to inbound subscribers of Foreign Telecom Operators (FTOs) granted.
Kerala High Court held that the Principal Commissioner while considering application u/s. 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act should solely assessee the condonation in preferring the refund application. The Principal Commissioner shouldn’t assessee merit of the refund claim.
Explore the AP High Court’s judgment on Sakthi Steel Industries vs. Appellate Commissioner, analyzing GST registration cancellation based on premises sharing
Assessee was denied travel permission as it was a case related to arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act) on 115 crores money laundering Case and assessee was seeking permission to travel abroad was allegedly to undergo, “Prophylactic Laser Retinopexy which was widely available in India, therefore, there was no ground to consider the prayer for travel abroad of assessee.
