MCA order in publishing the list of directors associated with struck off companies under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 on the Website of MCA, showing the status of assessee as disqualified Directors was not legally tenable as section 164(2) of the Companies Act would take effect only from the financial year 2014-15.
Pardeep Kumar Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and others (Punjab and Haryana HC) The order reverting the petitioner is vindictive. The petitioner has absolute right to get the information under the Right to Information Act. Seeking information under the Right to Information Act cannot put question mark on his integrity. The appellate order has also over […]
As the supply to a DFS by an Indian supplier is not to ‘a place outside India’, therefore, such supplies do not qualify as ‘export of goods’ under GST. Consequently, such supplies cannot be made without payment of duty by furnishing a bond/letter of undertaking (LUT) under rule 96-A of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Aggrieved party cannot be left remedy less merely because the State Government has not notified the Appellate Forum. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Financial Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise, to notify the Appellate Forum within one week.
PCIT Vs FIS Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) In the present case, the reassessment notice is solely based on an audit opinion. Having regard to the fact that the assessee’s challenge to the previous year’s re-assessment orders was successful – in FIS Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 2018 (408) […]
Bombay High Court has held that time consumed by the concerned Ministry in granting certificates required for retrospective exemption and refund must be ignored.
In the instant case, the respondent is seeking enforcement of the liability of the petitioners created under Section 30 and 37 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as the cause of action for the plaint is based on the dishonour of the said cheques. Since, the suit is not based on any contract between the parties, the bar under Section 69 (2) of the of the Indian Partnership Act,1932 would not apply.
They have made bogus billing and adjusted the amount without any transportation of the goods or sale of goods etc. Only paper transactions were done and amounts have been adjusted and wrongly claimed relief of more than Rs. 80 crores.
Goods in question were never received by the assessee in its factory and therefore, the assessee’s claim of having consumed the same was not genuine.
Zaveri and Co Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) 1. Mr. Uchit Sheth, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has challenged rule 96 (10) (b) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 insofar as the same has been given retrospective effect. It was pointed out that […]
