Dharmendra M. Jani Vs Union of India And Others (Bombay High Court) GST – Constitutionality of section 13(8)(b) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – While as per the opinion of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan the provision of section 13(8)(b) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 related to Itermediary Services […]
High Court had refused to grant anticipatory bail to assessee-journalists who being accused of cheating depositors through Ponzi schemes as assessee had been indicted in an economic offence which was of serious in nature and the larger angle of conspiracy with regard to patronage of political and other persons in growth of such ponzi firms were required to be unearthed, no effective investigation could be made by the police by enlarging assessee on pre-arrest bail, even if he was ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation by remaining on pre-arrest bail.
Prime facie, there are serious and specific allegations leveled against the petitioner in the FIR in question for which her custodial interrogation would be imperative, more so, since she allegedly removed crucial documents having a direct link with the proceedings, which were pending against her and her husband under the CGST Act.
Refusal to issue customs clearance to the High Alumina Refractory Cement (HARC) imported – demand for production of BIS certificate for the goods imported by the petitioners
M/s. Mili Enterprise Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) High Court issued notices to the Government observing that the department should at least provide the reason for blocking the input tax credit and it should be specified in a notice under rule 86(A). FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT Heard learned Advocate […]
Vennapusa Venkata Subba Reddy Vs Union of India (Andhra Pradesh High Court) It is allegged that petitioner has issued fake GST invoices with a total turnover of Rs. 397,28,11,944/- without supply of goods to different business firms/companies by passing on a total fraudulent input tax credit of Rs. 61,30,33,274/- in respect of 21 firms, out […]
M/s. Kone Elevators (India) Pvt. Limited Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Undoubtedly, the assessee had not submitted the ratification certificate to be obtained from the CBDT for claiming exemption under Section 10B of the Act. However, there are certain confusions even within the Department Officials regarding production of such ratification certificate from the CBDT. The […]
Director Identification Numbers (DINs) of assesses-director allotted under Rule 10 of the Companies (Appointments and Qualifications of Directors) Rules, 2014, were not liable to be deactivated or cancelled solely for the reason that assesses-director stood disqualified for appointment / reappointment as Directors of Companies by operation of Section 164(2).
mere legal ownership will not be enough to fasten liability on the assessee in respect of the market value of the seized assets even though the said seized assets belong to the assessee. The Court held that on the valuation date the right of the assessee was in jeopardy and therefore having regard to the definition of net wealth and asset as appearing in Section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, the Wealth-tax Officer was not justified in estimating the value of such asset.
Vishwataj Developers Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Conclusion: In present case, the Hon’ble high court held Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked in a routine manner, when dispute pertains to examination of facts and when there is alternative efficacious remedy available. Held: The assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) of the […]
