As per clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, it was provides that where a proper officer under Central Goods and Services Tax Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under that Act on the same subject matter.
It is ordered that PAN of the applicant shall not be declared inoperative and the applicant would not be in default in any proceedings only for the reason that the permanent account number is not linked with Aadhaar or Aadhaar number is not quoted and the applicant shall not be subjected to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 139AA of the Act till the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. and others in Civil Application No.8588 of 2019 is delivered and available. Rule is made absolute accordingly to the aforesaid extent.
Gujarat High Court allows release of the conveyance confiscated by the GST department under section 130 of the CGST Act upon depositing a sum of Rs.60,795/- by way of fine.
Tulsiram Vs ACIT (Benami Prohibition) (Chhattisgarh High Court) To decide the core issue whether the amended Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 can be made applicable for initiating proceedings against the petitioner in respect of the properties which were purchased or acquired prior to 01.11.2016, it would be necessary to read the Prohibition of Benami […]
Pr. CIT Vs Dreamcity Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) In the present case, the Revenue is seeking to rely on three documents to justify the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153 C of the Act against the Assessee. Two of them, viz., the licence issued to the Assessee by the DTCP and the letter […]
Shaurya Enterprises Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) It has been observed that till March 31, 2018 it was not mandatory to download the e-way bill from the official website and the said requirement was effective from 1st April, 2018. In this case the e-way bill which was downloaded and submitted on 10.12.2017 at […]
Usha Exports Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) The first contention raised by Dr. Shivram regarding the absence of statement regarding petitioner’s failure in the reasons is correct. The reasons supplied along with the impugned notice, which are reproduced above, contain no assertion there was any failure of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all […]
The issue under consideration is whether the act of residing in the premises of the petitioner for 8 days in case of search is permissible under Act?
Arvind Kumar Munka Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court) This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the petitioner who has prayed for his enlargement on bail on any conditions. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused along with other accused persons […]
The Gujarat High Court set aside Reassessment Notice issued to the amalgamated company which ceased to exist after approval of the composite scheme of arrangement.
