M/s. UCN Cable Network (P) Ltd. Vs. Designated Committee under SVLDR Scheme, 2019 (Bombay High Court, Nagpur) Completion Of Investigation Not a Condition Precedent For Eligibility Under ‘Sabka Vishwas’ (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court while quashing the Designated Committee’s decision of rejecting declaration under the Amnesty SVLDR Scheme observed that […]
Regulation 72(1) provides that an officer or employee shall be eligible for payment of gratuity either as per the provisions of the Act of 1972 or as per Sub-regulation (2) whichever is higher. Thus, it is beyond doubt that an employee must receive gratuity whichever is more beneficial either under the Act of 1972 or under the Regulations framed by the bank. However, this is not the same thing as to suggest that an employee can choose computation of gratuity under one statute and seek benefits of other provisions under another statute. As we have noticed, the scheme of gratuity under the Act of 1972 and under the regulations framed by the bank are different.
Punjab & Haryana HC quashed the detention order and notice issued under Section 130 of the CGST Act, whereby the Petitioner’s goods were seized by the Authorities for the non-payment of tax by the supplier of goods.
Commercial Court shall have power to provide a new time period for filing written statement under section 15(4) of the Act, 2015 itself, independent of Section 148 CPC.
HC held that condition precedent for exercise of power under Rule 86A of the GST Rules is the availability of credit in the electronic credit ledger which is alleged to be ineligible. If credit balance is available, then the authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, not allow the debit of amount equivalent to such credit. However, there is no power of negative block for credit to be availed in future.
A K Enterprise Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) HC clarified that even pending the Appeals, it shall be open for the writ applicant herein being the owner of the goods and the applicant of the Civil Application being the owner of the conveyance to prefer an appropriate application for the provisional release of […]
It is now brought to my notice that the petitioner has made certain adhoc payments pending investigation as a consequence of which the attachment of the bank account of the petitioner i.e. Mutharamman Iron and Steels has been lifted. Thus, the challenge to the provisional attachment does not survive any longer and recording the aforesaid, this writ petition is closed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
Divesh Prakashchand Jain Vs PCIT (Bombay High Court) We have perused the notice as well as the order passed by Respondent No.1 and in our view, there is no case made out for transferring Petitioner’s case to Bengaluru. Under Section 127(2) of the Act, where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case […]
Considering the object of Section 138 of the NI Act, which is mainly to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility of transacting business through cheque as also taking into account the provisions of Section 147 which states that every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. Further, it is mainly a transaction between the private parties where the State is not affected.
HC quashed the decision of Disciplinary Board of the ICAI against the Chartered Accountant alleged of committing of misconduct. Held that, the complaint filed is undoubtedly incomplete and cannot be relied upon and was not enquired properly and by following the established principles of law. Further, held that complaints made to the Disciplinary Authority shall be enquired in all aspects with an unbiased behaviour before passing an order and the reasons for forming any opinion is of paramount importance in an enquiry proceedings.
