Hari Prakash Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (Himachal Pradesh High Court) The petitioner, a Junior Basic Teacher, with 01.03.1958 as his date of birth was due for superannuation on 29.02.2016. The date of his annual increment was 1st March of every year. He being a State awardee was granted an extension of one […]
Veer Pratab Singh Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) The petitioners are dealers, inter alia, in brass and copper scraps, having their business concern in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu and Jamnagar, Gujarat, respectively. A consignment of scrap that was being transported from Coimbatore to Gujarat from the 1st petitioner, as consigner, to the 2nd petitioner, […]
The issue under consideration is whether show cause notice for confiscation of goods or conveyance is justified to issue on mere suspension under GST Act?
The instant petition is filed to seek to release of the detained goods and vehicles under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act. The court directed the respondent authority to release the vehicle and the goods after obtaining a bond of Rs.11,73,480 from the writ applicant.
Agarwal Foundries Private Limited Rama Towers Vs Union of India (Telangana High Court) No provision of any law is cited before us by the respondents to say that they are entitled to use physical violence against persons they suspect of being guilty of tax evasion while discharging their duties under the CGST Act, 2017. Merely […]
High Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) 1. Although the situation in the State of Maharashtra because of the pandemic has improved over the last few days, access to the courts of law is yet not free. To ensure that persons suffering orders of dispossession, demolition, eviction, etc., passed […]
Sanjiv Kumar Mittal Vs Deputy Commissioner (TRC), CGST Commissionerate Delhi South & Ors. (Delhi High Court) SECTION 87(b)(i) OF THE FINANCE ACT PROVIDES FOR A GARNISHEE ORDER ONLY – i.e. PROVIDES FOR ATTACHMENT OF FUNDS OF AN ASSESSEE LYING WITH THIRD PARTIES. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE FINANCE ACT MAKING AN EX-DIRECTOR, EVEN IF […]
CIT Vs Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) Here, on facts, the Tribunal noted that the AO only discussed the provisions of section 14A(l) but has not justified how the expenditure the Assessee incurred during the relevant year related to the income not forming part of its total income. The AO, according […]
CIT Vs Vijaya Bank (Karnataka High Court) Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that prior to amendment with effect from 01.04.2008, benefit of Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act was not available to a Banking Company and therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. It is further submitted […]
Where assessee did not produce any material, despite opportunity being afforded to show that the amount seized during the search, did not belong to it but belonged to some other person as claimed by it; the addition made in the hands of the assessee on account of cash seized during the search would be sustainable.
