Sunil Kumar & Company Sri Ganganagar Vs Union Of India (Rajastan High Court) High Court grant liberty to the petitioner to make an application before GST Council through Standing Counsel, who is further requested to hand over the same to the jurisdictional officer for forwarding the same to the GST Council to issue requisite certificate […]
AGS Cinemas Pvt. Ltd Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Madras High Court) Hon;b;e High Court held that ‘online booking charges’ charged by a Cinema Hall Owner besides the “cost of ticket” for entry into the cinema hall and enjoy the entertainment in the form of a movie, is not part of taxable receipt by the Cinema […]
Big Bags International (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court) The assessee had exported bags to foreign customers in the past and had incurred unforeseen additional costs on certain imported raw material. In order to recover the additional costs incurred, the assessee had raised debit notes on the foreign customers and credited the amount due […]
Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules/WBGST Rules drawing its power from Section 43A(4) of the CGST Act/WBGST Act, which is yet to be notified, restricts ITC available to a buyer of goods or services to a maximum of 10% on the basis of the details of outward supplies furnished by the supplier of goods or […]
Registration of FIR against assessee for offence under Section 56 of the Act of 2005 was bad, as no FIR for the said non-cognizable offence could be registered and for offence under Section 56, only complaint could be filed by the specified authority / person named in Section 60(a)/(b), that too cognizance can be taken by the jurisdictional criminal court only if previous sanction has already been granted by the competent authority under Section 59 of the Act of 2005.
Dyani Antony Paul Vs Union Of India (Karnataka High Court) The main object of PML Act is to ascertain the proceeds of crime which involved in money laundering and attachment, confirmation and confiscation of the proceeds of crime in the form of properties and also to punish the offenders of money laundering. The date of […]
Prosecution launched by the Deputy Director for alleged non disclosure of cash by assessee and his wife was not maintainable and premature one. Merely because the power vested to lodge a complaint by the Deputy Director every case the prosecution could not be launched merely on the conferment of such power without any material. If AO came to the conclusion in a proceedings under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, it was open to the Department to initiate penal action as per law.
Since the petition against Enforcement Directorate towards claiming of interest under section 42(3) of FERA towards seized travellers cheques was filed more than 9 years after receiving the rupee equivalent of UK Pounds 1800 without providing of any reasonable explanation for the delay, therefore, the same was liable to be rejected solely on the ground of laches.
Application and affidavits filed in support thereof discloses sufficient cause for non-appearance. The Tribunal, has inappropriately rejected the Miscellaneous Application, without examining the merits of the said submissions. Paras 5 and 6 of the Impugned Order, as reproduced above, reveal that the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application merely on the ground that the Petitioner had sought frequent adjournments
Tikeshwar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court) Vehicle seized for commission of offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; interim custody can be granted under Section 451/457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT 1. This petition under Section […]
