Barak Valley Cements Ltd Vs Union of India (Gauhati High Court) Petitioners were informed that unless they clear their GSTR-3B return for 02 or more tax periods upto August, 2020, their EWB generation facility will be blocked on the EWB portal. If the petitioner company fails to pay as informed then the EWB portal will […]
The provisions of Proviso to Rule 92[3] stipulate a right to be heard; and in the present case, this right, as accepted by the learned Additional Government Advocate, is not extended to the petitioner. Therefore, the order cannot be sustained and is required to be quashed on this short ground, and the case remanded for re- consideration.
Merely pointing out to a source and the source admitting that it has made the payments is not, sufficient to discharge the burden placed on the assessees by Section 68 of the said Act. If this were so, then, it would be sufficient for assessees, to simply persuade some credit- less person or entity to own up having made such huge payments and thereby evade payment of property tax on the specious plea that the Revenue, can always recover the tax from such credit- less source, if possible.
The issue under consideration is whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the conditions of Rule 18DA(8A) can be looked into only by the prescribed authority and not by the Assessing Officer?
Petitioner filed this petition to seek anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered for the offense punishable under Sections 12, 7(a), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
whether the petition filed for disposal of notice for demanding property tax without waiting for disposal of same case by Municipal Corporation is justified in law?
Technimont Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab (Punjab High Court) On perusal of terms and conditions of contract, documents submitted by petitioner including Form ‘C’ and judgments cited, we are of the opinion that petitioner has prime facie case on merits. The respondent issued Form ‘C’ for all the years in question and in case […]
Piyush Bokaria Vs RBI (Madras High Court) Facts- The RBI’s master circular dated 01.07.2015 is challenged on the ground that it violates Article 14, 19, 21, 253 and 300-A of the constitution. Further, it is also challenged to be contrary to the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Transfer […]
Validity of Reassessment when Pursuant to survey under section 133A, it was found that deduction under section 80-IA was not available to assessee
Sandeep Goyal Vs Union Of India (Rajsthan High Court) Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the petitions and has submitted that allegations levelled against the petitioners were serious in nature. After thorough investigation of the case it transpired that accused had created 75 fake firms and had issued GST invoices of taxable value of Rs. […]
