Deputy Director of Income Tax (INV) Vs Xiongwei Li (Delhi High Court) The proforma for issuance of the Look Out Circular indicates the nationality of the respondent to be that of China. As per the communication dated 19.2.2022 apart from the aspect of M/s Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Private Limited (HTICPL) and M/s Huawei Technologies […]
Demand notice issued by the tax authorities to a Senior Advocate seeking payment of service tax on legal services provided by him to a legal firm was set aside as Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 had been amended by way of substitution by virtue of two consecutive notifications, i.e., Notification No. 18/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016 and Notification No.34/2016-ST dated 06.06.2016
N D Timbers Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) The core question of law which falls for consideration by this Court is whether the levy of five time fees in the form of penalty upon the petitioners on import of timber after granting them relaxation for such import will violate the provisions of Article […]
All questions relating to novation of the MOU with the execution of the Supplemental Agreement and the significance of reference to the terms of the MOU in Clause-13 of the Supplemental Agreement, which touch upon the jurisdiction of the sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute, must be decided by the sole Arbitrator as required under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court observed that Payment Aggregators would fall under Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 as Payment Aggregator ensures that the money is transferred to the designated nodal account, and after a gap of a stipulated timeframe, which the petitioners say is three days, a settlement takes place and funds are transmitted to the merchant’s account.
Create Consults Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Pradesh High Court) While generating the e-way bill, on account of a bonofide error, instead of detail of AVGOL India Pvt. Ltd. (Supplier), petitioner mentioned its own details. Meaning thereby the petitioner made attempt to demonstrate that the e-way bill which was generated by petitioner, should have […]
High Court held that reasons provided to the petitioner did not contain any information but it is titled as ‘cash related information detail’ and such information cannot be said to be sufficient for reopening of the assessment.
Robbins Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of M.P. (Madhya Pradesh High Court) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 28-9-2019, whereby the appellate authority, respondent No.3 herein, has confirmed the imposition of tax to the extent of Rs.1112134/- and penalty […]
Whether authorities justified in imposing tax & penalty on the ground that, at the time of interception, validity period of E-Way bill stood expired
Kerala High Court held that in an offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when the Court imposes imprisonment and fine, fine forms part of the sentence hence the court has to order payment of compensation from the amount of fine as provided under Section 357(1)(b) of CrPC.
