Held that insufficiency of evidence or material is not a ground for setting aside an arbitral award. Income tax return is material evidence to establish the claim.
It also observed that the conviction of the petitioner is under the NI Act which are ordinarily treated as minor offences in criminal jurisprudence.
Gharpure Engg. & Construction (Pvt) Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court) The challenge is to an order of assessment passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the period 2013-14. The substantial addition to turnover is on the ground of mismatch of particulars between the details contained […]
The challenge to the order passed under Section 73 under GST cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction since the time limit prescribed for an aggrieved assessee to prefer statutory remedy has expired before filing of the writ petition. Application for rectification of mistake can be entertained where time limit for proceedings extended by the Supreme Court.
SRF Ltd Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Section 35(2AB) of the Act provides for weighted deduction of one and one half times (150%) of the expenditure incurred by a company on scientific research on in-house R&D facilities approved by the prescribed authority i.e. DSIR. In support of his submission, he relies upon Rule […]
Bestpay Solutions Private Limited Vs Razorpay Software Private Limited (Karnataka High Court) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:- “A. Pass An Order U/S 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 appointing a sole arbitrator as per agreement dated entered on dated: 18/11/2020 to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, […]
Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, as per which, a presumption is raised in favour of the complainant that the notice had, in fact, been delivered.
There is no dispute that petitioners deposited taxes, however, the mistake which petitioners have committed is that they deposited tax under minor head ‘200’ instead of ‘400’.
Basudev Mittal Vs Union of India (Chhattisgarh High Court) It is alleged that the applicant has illegally availed Input Tax Credit of more than Rs.5,00,00,000/- by purchasing the goods from several suspicious and fake suppliers whose registration had already been cancelled. During search, it also came to the forefront that more than 700 vehicles, against […]
Jinesh Associates Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) Proviso to Section 29(2) of Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act specifically observes that there shall be no cancellation of GST registration without giving an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, during the course of proceedings relating to cancellation of registration, there is a statutory mandate […]
