HC directed the Adjudicating Authority to consider the prayers of provisional release of seized goods of the assessee, during the pendency of the proceedings under the Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Sony India Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India & Another (Telangana High Court) It is the duty and responsibility of the Assessing Officer / Assistant Commissioner to correctly determine the duty leviable in accordance with law before clearing the goods for Home consumption. The assessing officer instead, having failed in correctly determining the duty payable, […]
Union of India Vs Bangalore Turf Club Limited (Karnataka High Court) Karnataka High Court Stays the Judgment of Single Judge in which he held that Goods and Service Tax (GST) cannot be levied on the entire bet amount received in the totalisator as it would take away the principle that tax can only be levied on […]
REIL Electricals India Ltd. Vs Joint Secretary and ors. (Madras High Court) Madras High Court allows rebate on exports where fraudulent entry in Credit was regularized by subsequent payment Madras High Court in held that, owing to the squaring up of liability by Assessee along with interest to regularize its mistake of fraudulent entry made […]
Bombay High Court orders Union and State Governments to complete XIth standard admission based on Xth standard marks within six weeks. Full judgment included.
Since there was close association between the seller and the buyer and their ‘arranged’ pricing were adequately substantiated by TPO / AO / CIT(A), therefore, that part of the CIT(A)’s order was upheld which confirmed in toto AO ‘s order as regards the ALP and the resultant excess profit to be treated as deemed income under ‘other sources’.
Subhash Kumar Singh Vs State of Assam and Anr. (Gauhati High Court) It has been, prima facie, found that the evasion of tax was more than Rs. 5 crores which necessitated the arrest of the Petitioner in compliance of the provision of Section 132 (1) (i) of the Assam GST Act, 2017. Hence, the argument […]
It was held by the Supreme Court that merely because the entire share capital was subscribed by the Government of India, it did not mean that the company did not own the property in question. It was held that the company was a separate legal entity.
Medical Bureau Vs Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax Delhi North (Delhi High Court) Medical Bureau (Petitioner) filed a writ petition seeking directions to the Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax (Respondent) to refund to the former, an amount of Rs. 1,35,30,255/- lying as unutilized input tax credit during the period spanning October 2017 […]
Jaiveer Singh Virk Vs Sir Sobha Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The next question is- what is the nature of Appellant’s right and whether such a right is enforceable under law? The Appellant asserts that he is a shareholder of Respondent No. 1, which is a corporate entity, incorporated in the year […]
