The issue under consideration is whether without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondent has passed the order is justified in law?
Darpan Sahu Vs State Of U.P. (Allahabad high Court) Allahabad High Court stays all recoveries/coercive action of any kind for two weeks to ensure no filing takes places till 6.4.2020. Today, there is an extraordinary situation in the country due to pandemic Corona Virus and therefore, it calls for an extraordinary measure to be taken […]
Shree Motor Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) It is alleged that due to various technical glitches/system error the petitioners have failed to file Form GST Tran-1 at common portal within the time envisaged under Rule 117 of the CGST Rules. After attempting help at the GST network portal, the petitioners approached the department […]
Carewell Security Services Private Limited Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Conclusion: Employer could not camouflage basic wage as part of allowance so as to avoid deduction and contribution under the EPF Act. Held: Assessee was company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and was engaged in the business of […]
Ashok R. Mansata Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) Coronavirus that has brought to a standstill all activities around the world including our High Court. In the prevailing situation, I am of the view that passing a writ of mandamus against the Income Tax Authorities would go against the notification issued by […]
CIT Vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (Gujarat High Court) In terms of the above Circular No.15 dated 8.5.1969, for the purpose of calculation of tax deductible at source under section 192, self-certification on the part of the employee that the conveyance was owned by him and being used by him for the purposes […]
Claudio De Simone & Ors. Vs. Acital Farmaceutica SRL. & Ors. (Delhi High Court); CS(OS) 576/2019, IA No.15741/2019, 17.03.2020 FACTS In the present case, Plaintiff No. 1 was an inventor of a US patent formulation namely; De Simone Formulation. The said formulation is highly concentrated bacterial formulation beneficial for pharmaceutical and dietary indications. In the year […]
The writ petition is not maintainable challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Hon’ble Supreme court in GKN Drive Shafts’ case reported in 259 ITR 19 (SC), clarified the procedure to be followed, when notice is issued under Section 148. Therefore, the petitioner has to follow such procedure including by asking the reasons for reopening the assessment. Upon the request so made, the reasons can be furnished and the petitioner can file objections and the Officer thereafter has to pass a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment. In this case, the writ petitioner has not filed the return and on the other hand filed the present writ petition straightaway.
Hence, the High Court of Kerala quashed the reassessment proceedings under section 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST), 1961 since the provision does not prescribe any time limit and no additional material to undertake the fast track assessment was presented by the department.
In the present case, the Court by its reasoned order had refused to grant an injunction on the basis that the alleged infringing mark is descriptive in nature and does not tarnish the goodwill of the Plaintiff. Also the same is being used as a label by the Defendant and not as a trademark per se.
