S.P. Eswaramurthy Vs Government of Tamil nadu (Madras High Court) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the idol in the ancient temple called Arulmighu Paramasivan Swamy Thirukkoil, Siviyarpalayam, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District was stolen. Subsequently, that was retrieved by the Police and thereafter it was produced before the concerned Court ie., the Special Court […]
Pioneer Carbide Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Meghalaya High Court) The present matter is governed by Rule 117 of the CGST Rules of 2017. Thus, on plain reading of the Rule, a registered person who has submitted a declaration electronically in the relevant form is entitled to revise the declaration and file it afresh […]
The petitioner is permitted to file once again rectified TRAN-I Form electronically or manually within a period of 30 days from today; pursuant to the petitioner filing the said form, respondents would consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
We form an opinion that the order is bad in law. This we say so, for two reasons- (a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; (b) order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences.
Coursera Inc Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) The Petitioner in its application for certificate under section 197 dated 23.09.2021 describes itself as an e-platform operator. In the later part of the same application the petitioner claims itself to be a university for the purposes of article 12(5)(c) of the DTAA between India and United States […]
Chartered Accountants Association, Surat Vs. Union Of India (Gujarat High Court) HC refuses to Extend Due date of Filing The Tax Audit Report Mr. Poddar, the learned counsel made a request that the deadline of 15.01.2022 for the purpose of filing the audit report may be extended to 15.02.2022. We are not inclined to go […]
This Court is of the considered opinion that changing mode of instruction to English or imparting education in English per-se is not violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the children or to their parents under Article 21A of the Constitution of India. Because Article 21A only assures right of a child below 14 years to have access to free and compulsory education, whereas the manner has been left at the discretion of the State to be determined by law.
HC not deemed it appropriate to non-suit the petitioner on the ground that there is an efficacious remedy of appeal, more so since we are not setting aside the order on merits but are only directing that the Assessing Officer should pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
V.S. Products Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) Legality of levy of NCCD as per Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001 As per Section 136 of the Finance Act, a surcharge by way of duty of excise at the rates specified in the schedule is levied. By virtue of the amendment of the […]
Parvaiz Ahmad Bhat Vs Fida Mohamamd Ayoub (Jammu and Kashmir High Court) The question whether stop payment instructions, which result in dishonor of a cheque, would amount to an offence under Section 138 of the NIA Act, was considered by the Supreme Court in M. M. T. C. Ltd. Vs. M/S Medchl Chemicals, (2001) 1 […]
