Bombay High Court granted conditional bail to Customs House Agent involved in transportation of drugs since applicant is already in custody for last 3 years and conclusion of trial in near future is a remote possibility.
Bombay High Court held that when the petitioner satisfied the requirements of Section 31(3)(d) of the CGST Act denial of input tax credit to the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 16 of the CGST / MGST Act.
These orders arises out of demand notice dated 3/3/2011 issued by respondent no.2 calling upon the Federation to pay an amount of Rs.14,21,145/- and to deposit the same to the credit of respective EPF accounts of the employees of the Federation.
Petitioners sought for an adjournment requesting relevant papers to examine the legality of the personal hearing notice. Respondent No.3 furnished documents most of which were handwritten and illegible.
Absence of adherence to procedure laid down in Section 144B of Income Tax Act render the assessment order patently illegal: Bombay HC in Teerth Developers And Teerth Realties JV (AOP) Vs Additional/ Joint/Deputy/ ACIT/ ITO
Bombay High Court held that rejection of application for waiver of interest under section 234C without addressing the submissions highlighted by the petitioner. Accordingly, waiver application remitted back for denovo consideration.
Bombay High Court quashes MVAT appeal dismissal and directs decision based on merits, citing statutory mandate under Section 26 of the Maharashtra VAT Act.
Bombay High Court held that the system-generated provisional acknowledgement of the appeal shows that requisite pre-deposit has been made, thus dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with necessary pre-deposit required in Section 107(6) of the CGST Act not justified.
Bombay HC rules that limitation for filing appeal under MGST Act begins from the email communication date of the assessment order, April 20, 2019.
The High Court does not, therefore, act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal to correct errors of fact and does not, by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226, trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief.
