Mundkar Madhavaraya Prabhu Vs State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court) Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the availability of equally efficacious and alternative remedy by way of appeal before the First Appellate Authority, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of […]
Godrej Consumer Products Limited Vs Union of India (Jammu & Kashmir High Court) In the present case, impugned Notifications are lucid and eloquent and need not be interpreted or construed in the way and manner the petitioner intends and chooses to and as a result whereof, writ petition qua impugned Notifications is liable to be […]
Punjab & Haryana High Court granted bail in fake GST matter as no recovery had been effected from the petitioner during police remand.
Consequent upon the 101st amendment to the Constitution certain taxes including the taxes and advertisement which were levied by the respective States and the Union were subsumed into goods and service tax The authority to levy tax which was available under entry No.55 List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution had been omitted Consequently the inferior corporate bodies of the State did not have power to levy and collect the tax on advertisement.
The Hon’ble J&K High Court held that, the Bank could auction the property even with encumbrances attached to property but it was incumbent upon the Bank to disclose the encumbrances and litigations on the same or tenancy, if any, attached to the property to all the persons who wanted to participate in the same and to the successful bidder
Writ petition was allowed against the order for cancellation of registration solely on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice as assessee had approached the appellate Court putting forth the reasons of the negligence of the accountant and passing away of some of the persons.
It is not a case of lack of enquiry or lack of proper enquiry. The PCIT does not in as many words states that there was lack of enquiry or lack of proper enquiry and all that is said is that the assessing officer did not verify these aspects which is factually incorrect. Therefore, it is not a case where the PCIT could have invoked his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act.
Maa Kalika Bhandar and Others Vs Collector and District Magistrate (Orissa High Court) Property was mortgaged in favour of the Bank on 28.06.2016 whereas the Income Tax Authorities had attached the same on 31.12.2015. Hence, the mortgaged transaction in favour of the Bank is void. Main argument stressed is that the properties in both the […]
Suguna Automobiles Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court) K.A.Parthasarathy, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order has been made under Section 73 of ‘Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017‘ [hereinafter ‘C-GST Act’ for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity]. Notwithstanding very […]
The issue concerns the year 2019-2020. There was a mismatch between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A. This was due to non filing of the returns by the suppliers of the goods. He purchased the goods during the period of 2019-20 from various suppliers to be used in its projects and the suppliers issued invoices bearing GGST and CGST Act. He made payments through the bank of those invoices.
