The present writ petition is based on the facts that owing to the advent of the new GST regime in case petitioner who is registered with GST is of the view that, is not liable to pay tax for these period need not file GST returns showing nil, but the provisions of the Act envisages requirement of filing returns.
In the present case, the education loan application had been declined on the ground that the CIBIL report of the petitioner’s father showed that there was a default in a commercial vehicle loan availed by him.
Subhash Joshi & another Vs Director General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) & Ors. (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Submission of counsel for petitioner is that the search should be carried out in the presence of the Advocate, but counsel for petitioner has failed to point out any statutory provision or any such legal right in favour […]
Independent Schools’ Association Chandigarh (Regd.) & others Vs State of Punjab and others (Punjab & Haryana High Court) High Court held as follows:- (a) The schools are permitted to collect their admission fee, henceforth. (b) All schools irrespective whether they offered online classes during the lock-down period or not, are entitled to collect the tuition […]
HC modify Conditions of Bail considering the inability of accused to comply with same due to COVID-19.
PCIT Vs B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction P Ltd (Bombay High Court) The issue under consideration is whether the Tribunal is correct in disallowing the deduction of interest expenditure on the ground that the assessee had diverted interest bearing funds for non-business purposes? In the present case, The assessee had outstanding balance shown in the […]
The issue under consideration is whether the loan given by the Government which was subsequently waived off can be taxed under Section 28(iv) of Income Tax Act?
Even in case the supreme court decide the above case in favour of assessee and make amendment section 140 of CGST Act, still that change will not allowed petitioner to claim Transitional Credit.
whether the rejection of petitioner’s application under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Form No. SVLDRS-3 in respect of central excise duty payable is justified by law?
The issue under consideration is whether the contention of the petitioner that the provisional attachment for wrong availment of ITC is without jurisdiction and illegal is correct?
