Section 54 of the CGST Act to ‘any person’ and would include the SEZ as well and accordingly, it shall be entitled to claim the refund of erroneously remitted tax.
HC directs Department is to open the portal and allow the Petitioner to file declaration in Form GST TRAN-1 and GST TRAN-2 so as to enable them to claim the transitional credit of the eligible duties in respect of the inputs held in stock on the appointed day in terms of Section 140(3) of the CGST Act.
In present facts of the case the Hon’ble High Court have allowed the writ petition filed by the Company, wherein it was held that so far as the ownership of land is concerned, each company has right to purchase property and the Benami Act, 1988, would not extend to properties purchased by the company.
Balaji Services Vs Union of India and others (Madhya Pradesh High Court) A declarant seeking remedy under SVLDR Scheme, 2019 shall be given an opportunity of being heard if their declaration is rejected The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s Balaji Publicity vs. Union of India and others [WP No.3133/2021 and W.P. No.3130/2021 decided […]
Vineeet Kumar Vs Union of India (Punjab and Haryana High Court) The precise contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while appearing in response to a notice under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short the CGST Act), Section 116 of the CGST Act permits the […]
The allotment of a plot by the West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation (HIDCO) to former cricketer and current BCCI President Sourav Ganguly for the purpose of establishing an educational institution was quashed as no one could claim to be exclusive, above the law and sought benefits from the State, especially when question arose for allotment of plots for commercial ventures.
Neeraja Rateria Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi (Calcutta High Court) The Court: Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. In this matter the petitioner has challenged the impugned assessment order dated 26th August, 2021 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act relating to assessment year 2018-19 and subsequent […]
The Calcutta High court in this case was considering the writ petition where the petitioner contended that the assessment was made in disregard of the violation of natural justice as the password for the Video Conferencing was not provided and relevant evidence was produced.
Monopoly Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court) 1. The petitioner is a private limited company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is a registered unit under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006 and, inter alia, engaged in the business of production […]
Jyoti Construction Vs Deputy Commissioner of CT & GST (Orissa High Court) 1. As far as the above contention is concerned, the Court is of the view that the prayer of the Petitioner that the debiting of the ECRL made by it should be reversed is a separate cause of action for which the Petitioner […]
