Mahalaxmi Infra Contract Ltd. Vs Goods and Services Tax Council (Jharkhand High Court) In the instant case it appears that on account of an inadvertent error, the entry relating to Tax Invoice No. 01/2018- 19 dated 17th January 2019 could not be reflected in the GSTR-1 filed by the petitioner against the GSTIN of Eastern […]
G. Ajay Agarwal Vs Bhagwandas and Co. (Madras High Court) The question as to whether by operation of provision of I&B Code, the criminal prosecution initiated under Section 138 r/w 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, r/w 200 of Cr.P.C can be terminated, is no longer res integra in view of Apec Court judgment in P. […]
Calcutta High Court held that provisions of rule 86A(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 nowhere indicates that the electronic credit ledger should contain sufficient balance for the purpose of blocking. Electronic credit ledger can be blocked even if there is NIL or insufficient balance.
Neo Built through its proprietor Vs ETO-cum-Proper Officer and another (Punjab and Haryana High Court) For the purpose of calculating the period of thirty days for filing application for revocation of cancellation of registration under sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Act and where cancellation order was passed upto 12.06.2020, the later of the […]
AO committed an error in summarily rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner and also rejecting the request to condone the delay in filing the appeal without assigning proper, valid and cogent reasons and that the same deserves to be set aside.
The Honble High Court observed that in terms of Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, a challenge to the order of a Commissioner can be made only on a substantial question of law. The present case was totally factual in nature and no substantial question of law took place.
Delhi High Court held that the remedy of arbitration provided in section 11 of the SARFAESI Act cannot override the special remedies stipulated under the set of special laws, and therefore even statutory arbitration cannot derogate from a remedy available to a lender for enforcing a security interest and the doctrine of election is simply not available. Quite clearly, matters covered by special laws, which create special rights, to be adjudicated and enforced by special forums, under special procedures, in this case the DRT, are non-arbitrable.
Jharkhand High Court held that acceptance of bribe duly proved and accordingly, a punishment of six months simple imprisonment under Section 7 of the PC Act and one year’s simple imprisonment under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act with a fine of Rs.1000 sentenced for accepting bribe for furnishing Income Tax clearance certificate
Gujarat High Court held that change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer acting on the same material which was examined by him in the regular assessment is erred in law.
Telangana High Court held that Tribunal rightly held the addition of LTCG as execution of registered sale deed is valid transfer u/s 2(47)(V). Hence, as the finding of fact by the Tribunal is clear the same doesn’t require any interference.
