Petitioner along with co-accused was found to have indulged themselves in evasion of the State Tax to the Govt., by flouting bogus firms and showing fake billings and transactions in order to draw the refund of the GST payment, and thereby had caused a loss to the tune of Rs.8.95 crore to the State Government.
It is recorded that this court has set aside the impugned adjudication order only on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice and has not gone into the merits of the case itself.
Restriction imposed under Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 should be lifted after the expiry of one year from the date of imposition of such restriction.
Parvin Kumar Batta Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) 1. Allowed, subject to the applicant/petitioner curing the deficiencies referred to in the captioned application within 15 days from today. CM No. 15835/2021 2. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 5166/2021 & CM No. 15834/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking stay on the operation […]
Pune Saraf Association & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court) It is an admitted and undisputed position that currently, there are insufficient Hallmark Centres in the country. This, according to us, is a decisive factor to be taken into consideration at the interlocutory hearing of this Writ Petition. Whilst we appreciate […]
The claim of the petitioner is that the impugned assessment order dated 21.04.2021 has been passed, without adherence to the statutory provisions contained in clauses (xiv) to (xvi) of Section 144B (1), and 144B (9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
TTEC India Customer Solutions Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Gujarat High Court) Learned advocate, Ms. Amrita Thakore has emphatically urged that there is a clear violation of principle of natural justice and hence, the rejection of the refund claim for the entire sum of Rs.2,84,04,175/- needs urgent indulgence. According to her, the […]
Krishna Kishore Singh Vs Sarla A. Saraogi (Delhi High Court) Facts- In the present case, plaintiff (Sushant’s Singh family) questioned the court to examine the right to privacy of Sushant’s family to prevent the defendants from publishing film on Sushant’s life when the other side contended that the right to privacy of a celebrity extinguishes […]
Hardik Textiles Through Its Prop. Hardik Patel (Gujrat High Court) It is not in dispute that due to the mistake of the consultant engaged by the petitioner, the amount has been deposited in the wrong account. The bank details are to be entered under RFD-05. The petitioner also did not raise the grievance immediately and […]
Revenue preferred an appeal against ITAT order which hold that open terrace area which can be accessed only through the private balcony of the individual purchaser should not be included while computing the built-up area for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10).
