The petitioner has ought to quash the seizure order dated 05.01.2018 which has been passed against the petitioner on the allegation that there was some wrong declaration on the date in the E-way Bill. The petitioner states that it had been written down inadvertently. Other than that no other allegation has been made against the petitioner.
In the present case, merely because the society charged some extra charges from a few of its members for display of neon signs, the society cannot be treated as an industry carrying on business of hiring out of neon signs or allowing display of advertisements. In the premises, the impugned award of the Labour Court suffers from a serious error of jurisdiction.
E-Way Bill has been made applicable under the Central GST with effect from 1st February, 2018 and was not in place on the date of seizure though the State of U.P. alone has made a provision for the E-Way Bill earlier but that was not applicable to the State of Jharkhand from where the said loader/tipper had started journey.
When the applications are filed to restore the same, the Courts are expected to look into the matter not only in the technical angle but also it needs blending of humanity looking to the nature of the case for which the restoration is sought. Otherwise the Court would start emitting danger signals.
Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench dated 28th August 2017, raising the following question for our consideration
Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal assisted by Sri Varad Nath and Miss. Archi Agarwal learned counsels for the petitioner. Sri V.K.S. Raghuvanshi, appeared for the respondent no.4, Sri C.B. Tripathi for the respondent nos.1 and 5 and Sri Arvind Kumar Kushwaha holding the brief of Sri Prem Shankar Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 6.
Jindal Dyechem Industries (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India ((Delhi High Court) It is apparent from these facts that the imports which are the subject matter of the present writ petition were in fact made after the introduction of GST Regime. The petitioner is the beneficiary of an advance license issued on 17.07.2017. At that point […]
Pr. CIT (A) Vs M/s Bank Note Paper Mill (Karnataka High Court) HC expresses concern and anguish at the tendency of the Revenue Department to file unnecessary appeals u/s. 260-A of the Act even though the issues are ex facie covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Courts or even the Hon’ble Supreme Court […]
PCIT Vs Rungta Mines Ltd (Calcutta High Court) The legal issue that the Revenue seeks to assert is as to whether the payment of the net present value by an assessee engaged in mining for use of forest land for mining purpose would be a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure. It is not in […]
Whether any addition to income can be made on the basis of balance-sheet and profit and loss accounts certified to have been prepared on estimate basis to avail bank loan and having no relation with the actual?
