HC quashed and set aside the orders blocking Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) of assessee without providing an opportunity of personal hearing.
WTS Energy Dmcc Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) Double Tax Avoidance Agreement obtaining between India and UAE does not contain any article concerning FTS. The petitioner, who is a non-resident and does not have a PE in India, claims that the subject income is “business income.” It is because of these varying stands, that a […]
Pawan Hans Limited Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes (Delhi High Court) The appellant states that it is in the business of chartering helicopters and has entered into agreements with various State Government and public sector entities for hiring of its helicopters. According to the VAT authorities, the agreements entail transfer of the right to […]
Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court) Inordinate delay in the advance ruling attaining finality would frustrate the scheme and the object of providing such advance rulings. Thus, keeping in view the express language of the proviso to Section 28KA of the Customs Act as well as the nature […]
Delhi High Court grants provisional enrolment to Sandeep, a Delhi Jal Board Senior Assistant, for AIBE-XVII, citing Supreme Court directions. Details of the hearing.
Pending investigation, GST department exercised its powers to tag exporter as risky exporter to enable department to verify export consignments etc., strict timelines provided under Circular No. 131/1/2020-GST, dated 23-1-2020 are to be adhered
HC held that Adjudicating order not sustainable where such order was passed without granting an opportunity of personal hearing despite request for grant of such opportunity by assessee.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that when investigation has already been commenced prior to filing of an application before Advance Ruling Authority (ARA), the authority should not admit the application and thereafter issue its ruling. Accordingly, the order is liable to be set aside.
Respondent, by way of rebuttal evidence has failed to probablize its defence to disprove statutory presumption available in favour of Appellant. Such failure has proved charge leveled against Respondent for offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
HC should not interfere in these types of cases where full-fledged investigations are required on alleged fictitious transaction/claim and all these are matters of evidence which cannot be appreciated by the writ court.
