Suit ought not to have been rejected outright under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the pleas taken by the appellants/plaintiffs were barred under Section 4(3) of the unamended Benami Act. It would therefore be imperative to weigh the evidence in the instant case for the court to conclusively decide as to whether the appellants/plaintiffs can succeed in their claim that the respondent No.1 was holding the suit premises in a fiduciary capacity, for the benefit of all the family members.
The issue under consideration is whether the Seizure of consignments by Assam Excise Officers in a process of transaction of export from Arunachal Pradesh and imported to Nagaland via Assam route is justified in law?
Liability of Purchase Tax under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Value-added Tax Act, 2006 was not attracted in case assessee’s turnover was also below Rs. 300 Crores during the year.
International Flavours and Fragrances India Private Limited Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) The issue under consideration is whether the notice issued u/s 147 for re-opening the assessment is justified in law? Petitioner is engaged in manufacture of flavour essences, mixed seasoning powders (dry mix) and formulated perfumery compounds etc. The petitioner started a new manufacturing […]
The issue under consideration that whether the Department was justified in disallowing the refund of claim on the ground that the petitioner was still in business and was adjusting the amount regularly?
As such the Development Commissioner appointed under section 11 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 is neither a proper officer within the meaning of Section 2(34) the Customs Act, 1962 nor a Central Excise Officer for the purpose of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to demand excise duty vide impugned show cause notice.
Since there was total or near total disruption of work due to alleged arrest of the customs officers and therefore, the delay in receiving and processing of transshipment application should not be at the cost of the Qatar Airways and assessee was not liable for demurrages and transshipment charges by Air Port Authority of India
Adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 could not solely be based on the inculpatory statements of witnesses and noticee alone. Such statements could be only used for corroborating the case which the Department proposed to establish before the quasi-judicial authorities.
The issue under consideration is whether the imposition of cost of one lakh rupees on an exporter for the blatant violation of the Duty-Free Credit Entitlement Scheme (DFCE) is justified in law?
The issue under consideration is whether the Assessing officer is correct in rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner against the reasons for reopening the assessment without passing speaking order?
