Rimi Sales Agency Vs Union of India (Tripura High Court) Show-cause notice was issued on 06.11.2018 which required the petitioner to appear before the said authority on 23.11.2018. Without permitting the petitioner to appear and file reply and oppose the demands the Inspector confirmed the demand by passing separate orders on 06.11.2018. This was wholly […]
Tirthamoyee Aluminium Products Vs State of Tripura (Tripura High Court) Due to a clerical error in the e-way Bill the distance from the place of origin to the destination was shown as 470 Kms. instead of actual distance of 1470 Kms. There is no dispute that the goods were sold by way of inter-state sale […]
The Court held that it being an inter-State transfer of goods there was no requirement of carrying the U.P. State e-way bill – the insistence by the State authorities that the petitioner’s vehicle was not carrying the U.P. E-way bill is without any factual and legal basis
A.S. Enterprise Vs Commissioner of State Tax U.P. (Allahabad High court) The petitioner’s case was that the petitioner could not produce relevant documents at the time of inspection of goods in transit. The same (all documents) were produced at the time of physical verification. The authority declined to verify the same. The detaining authority formed […]
Karnataka High Court held that the petitioner therein Amazon, neither seller nor supplier of the product in question could not have been hauled into the proceedings of a crime. Further, without arraigning the Company as an accused, the Directors of the company cannot be hauled into the proceedings.
Karnataka High Court held that section 7 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 mandates that once a society is registered with a particular name, another society should not be registered with undesirable names.
Delhi HC upheld the compensation awarded under Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 by Commissioner and have upheld that a person whose employment is of a casual nature and is employed other than for the purposes of the employer’s trade or business comes within the meaning of employee as defined in Section 2(1)(dd) of Employees Compensation Act.
High Court are of the view that the same is not at all a speaking order. No reasons have been assigned for rejecting the refund application of the petitioner. Assessing officer did not advert to the objections filed by the petitioner on 10.03.2022.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that appeal challenging the taxability of service, against the order of CESTAT, lies before Apex Court u/s 35L of the Finance Act, 1944 and not High Court.
PCIT Vs Meeta Gutgutia Prop. M/s. Ferns ‘N’ Petals (Delhi High Court) There is no such statement in the present case which can be said to constitute an admission by the Assessee of a failure to record any transaction in the accounts of the Assessee for the AYs in question. On the contrary, the Assessee […]
