Mohd. Abdul Khaliq Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) The Allahabad High Court recently in Mohd. Abdul Khaliq vs. State of U.P. and Another Application u/s 482 No.1743 of 2021 decided on 14-02-2023 considered the various provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 Act. The Court explicitly observed for the […]
Delhi High Court held that in terms of rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, when the Tribunal has ex-parte disposed of the appeal on merits and thereafter the appellant appears, the Tribunal shall set aside the ex-parte order and restore the appeal if sufficient cause is shown.
Madras High Court held that rectification petition filed after 5 years under Section 84(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 from the date of assessment order is unwarranted in law.
Jharkhand High Court held that denying migration of unadjusted TDS amount under JVAT Act (Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act) to JGST (Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Patna High Court held that bails is granted on furnishing of bails bonds as the recovery of gold biscuits-bullions is of value less than Rs. One Crore.
Issue before CESTAT was regarding justifiability of demand of service tax raised on Assessee disallowing credit availed on input service attributable to quantity of iron ore fines and coal fines cleared by Assessee.
Jharkhand HC remands case as unregistered dealer, Amar Ent., intends to make mandatory pre-deposit. Appeal to be heard on merits post-deposit.
Once it is found that rectification application u/s 254(2) of I. T. Act, 1961 has been submitted within a period of four years from the date of actual receipt of judgment and order passed by tribunal, which is sought to be reviewed, petitioner is entitled to relief.
Mukesh Kumar Singh Vs Commissioner (Appeals) CGST & C. Ex (Jharkhand High Court) Admittedly, petitioner is an unregistered dealer. His appeal has been dismissed on the ground of non-payment of mandatory pre-deposit. It does not appear that there was intent on the part of the petitioner to avoid payment of pre-deposit @7.5% as provided under […]
GE Power India Limited Vs Union of India & Ors (Calcutta High Court) HC held that impugned orders dated 12th February, 2020 rejecting the petitioner’s applications under the SVLDRS 2019, are arbitrary, invalid, perverse and not tenable in the eye of law for the following reasons: (i) On the date of filing of the applications […]
