In present facts of the case, the Honble Delhi High Court held that the pre-show cause notice consultation is mandatory under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962
Held that there is no provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, providing for a review of an order passed under Section 11 of the Act.
Bombay High Court held that interest or penalty due to delayed payment of tax cannot be levied in absence of specific provisions. Therefore, no interest and penalty can be levied on the portion of payment pertaining to surcharge, CVD and SAD.
Delhi High Court held that supplier has to pass on benefit of rate reduction of GST or the benefit of ITC on every supply. The supplier cannot claim that he has passed on more benefit to one customer therefore he could pass less or no benefit to another customer than the benefit which is actually due to that customer.
Whether or not refund of IGST on exported goods will be allowed in the present petition after deduction of the drawback duty?
Merely because a client were not to succeed in the matter and favourable orders were not passed in favour of that particular client, the said client cannot make out a case that there is a fraud which has been committed by the Advocate and offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC which has been committed by an Advocate.
Extramarks Education India Private Limited Vs Ram School (Delhi High Court) The petitioner’s other objection, that since in its reply dated 31.08.2021 the respondent themselves were willing to accept and had given their consent for appointment of an arbitrator “near to the locality” where the respondents were located, is neither here nor there, since if […]
By conjoint reading of section 279(2) and clauses 7(v) and 8. (iii), it is explicit that the Income Tax Authorities have the power to compound the offence either before or after the institution of the proceedings but certainly not after the conviction.
Kamlesh Keswani Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) HC held that petitioner is entitled to claim exemption under Section 54 of the Act on these admitted facts, as the conditions stipulated in Section 54 stand fulfilled. The New Property would be treated as the property purchased by the petitioner in his name and merely because he […]
Karnataka High Court held that once the dividend is paid by the company, SEBI has no power to initiate any action against the company or its directors who have defaulted in payment of dividend as specified under Section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956.
