Right to change the name has been held is a facet of fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India
GST registration cannot be cancelled on mere whims and fancies of Proper Officer. It may be cancelled under section 29(2) of CGST Act 2017
Arbitrary exercise of power cancelling the GST registration in the manner in which it has been done has not only adversely affected the petitioner, but has also adversely affected the revenues that could have flown to the coffers of GST
Allahabad HC quashed Income Tax reassessment Order notices for violating principle of natural justice & imposed Rs. 50 Lakh cost on Officers
HC granted bail to an Applicant involved in a trial relating to ITC fraud & held that seriousness of offences alone is not conclusive of Applicant’s entitlement to bail
We are frequently coming across cases where Income Tax Authorities are giving complete go by to the principles of natural justice. The excuse orally being set up usually by the departmental counsels is that there is some problem in the computerisation system which is solely controlled by CBDT
Mahavir Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Mahavir Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of U.P. And 2 others [Writ Tax No. 57 of 2020 and Writ Tax No. 58 of 2020 dated August 6, 2022] quashed the orders of the GST officials for seizing […]
Riadi Steels LLP Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) The GSTN authority is required to consider the feasibility of providing an additional field in the online form to be filled by dealers/transporters to obtain E-way bill, such that an additional field may be provided to feed the vehicle type i.e. normal or ODC etc., […]
Unless that allegation was specified in the notice with details and unless material considered adverse to the petitioner had been confronted to it for the purposes of eliciting its reply thereto, the notice dated 9.7.2012 would remain completely vague and mute.
Mittal Plywood And Furniture Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) From the record, it appears that the first notice was given by the respondent no.2 to the petitioner on 15.03.2022 granting 15 days’ time to submit reply with respect to the allegedly unverified transaction of Rs.3,19,22,729/-. On 30.03.2022, the petitioner submitted online adjournment application […]
