HC dismissed petition alleging harassment by Superintendent of GST & held that Actions taken by department during enquiry need not necessarily be termed as harassment
Held that an arbitral award can be set aside/ challenged u/s 34 of A&C Act only if an arbitral tribunal’s view is not a possible view and no reasonable person could possibly accept the same.
Himanshu Gupta Vs Vs. Narayana Reddy (Karnataka High Court) In terms of Section 421 of the Cr.P.C., a fine can be recovered in a manner as depicted hereinabove. Therefore, non-payment of compensation ensues dire consequences. The scheme of the provision being thus, though no application is filed, the Court may grant interim compensation, but it […]
Santacruz Gymkhana Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) Demand of entertainment duty on billiard tables Law as laid down by the Nagpur Bench of this Court in Gondwana Club (supra) will squarely apply to these petitions as well. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Gondwana Club (supra) read as under :- The word “entertainment” is […]
Whether order of the Adjudicating Authority (‘NCLT’) can be challenged in a proceeding under Article 226, has been, recently, analysed in the matter of Tharakan Web Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Company Law Tribunal (1st February, 2022) in W.P. (C) Nos. 27636 of 2020 & 14158 of 2021 before Kerla High Court.
Priti Nanda Vs CIT Appeals (Delhi High Court) 1. By way of the present petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondents to list, hear and decide the first appeal filed by the Petitioner against the Assessment Order and freezing proceeding issued against her by the concerned Assessing Officer within a period of one […]
Held that timely refund claim was filed by the petitioner before PIPDIC (lessor) instead of service tax department which was later on filed before service tax department but belatedly. Such refund claim should be processed by the service tax department.
Department should have adopted liberal approach in refusing request for time for filing objection to draft assessment order and finally passing assessment order. The department acted thick skinned.
Tribunal was legally justified in holding that on the manufacture and sale of laminated, insulated and toughened glass the dealer was liable to tax @ 10% as glass and not @ 16% as all the goods made of glasses
Gemini Coach Builders Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) It is seen that the petitioner has not only received the show cause notice but also earlier the petitioner was issued with summons and thereafter only DRC-01A has been issued, intimating the tax ascertained as being payable. Now, the show cause notice has been issued, […]
