Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Punjab & Haryana High Court) In the given case the petitioner is manufacturing lead ingots, red oxide and grey oxide. On 27.03.2018, officials of Respondent/GST Directorate searched premises of the Petitioner and during search seized record. The Respondent time to time directed […]
In our view, these circumstance, if considered in conjunction with total absence of ill motive, mala fide intent or animus to cause wrongful gain to the importers and the petitioner, lead to a legitimate inference that the act on the part of the petitioner was the result of negligence and carelessness. It falls short of misconduct.
Global Impex Vs Manager, Celebi Import Shed And Anr. (Delhi High Court) (i) The custodian has a lien over the imported goods, consigned to its custody. This lien may be statutory, as provided under the IAA Act, all the Major Port Trusts Acts, or contractual. It may also be relatable to Sections 170 and 171 […]
Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Vs Daejung Moparts Pvt Ltd. (Madras High Court) View of Third Member The question raised is as to whether interest on delayed payment of tax as contemplated under Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is automatic or the same is to be determined, […]
Makkhan Singh Vs Shyam Singh And 3 Others (Allahabad High Court) CPC-Constructive notice, held not sufficient-‘Willful disobedience’ to be proved beyond doubt-Court not to proceed on surmises or inferences As regards the contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioners with regard to presumption of service of notice in a case of a notice sent by […]
Financial stringency would not justify the non-remittance of TDS to the Government, in as much as, it would amount to utilization of money payable to the appropriate government. As such, by extending its benevolence.
Whether the payment of provident fund and employees state insurance (ESI) dues deposited by the Assessee within the grace period would qualify for deduction under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
Assessing Officer ought to have evaluated the claim made by the assessee for write-off of liability by Canara Bank in its favour amounting to Rs. 1,36,45,525/-, and should not have rejected the same merely on the ground of it being raised for the first time.
Court held that where the Act provides for sanction by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax in terms of section 151, then the sanction by the Commissioner of Income Tax would not meet the requirement of the Act and the reopening notice will be without jurisdiction.
Devrajbhai Vikrambhai Sambad Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) 1. Mr. Vijay Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the amount computed by the respondents towards fine in lieu of confiscation of conveyance, subject to the final order that may be passed by the respondents […]
