Bombay High Court held that the Goa Value Added Tax (12th Amendment) Act, 2020 is an impermissible judicial override defying the doctrine of separation of powers. Accordingly, respondents, based on the same, cannot deny any of the petitioners the benefits of earlier judicial decisions.
Detaining ATM machines of Licensee by Municipal Corporation was totally high handed & We do not approve of such action- HC
Petitioner submitted that it is correct that for part of GST Refund Claim claim which has been rejected refund was sought after a period of two years
Request for permission to go abroad. HC rejected request only for one reason that application filed by department for cancellation of bail is pending before Court of Sessions.
Maharaja Log Home OPC Pvt Ltd and Anr Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors (Bombay High Court) 1. The petition is directed against the order dated 7th September, 2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vashi, Belapur Navi Mumbai in Complaint Case No.1366/SS/2021 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 issuing process against […]
Bombay High Court dismisses plea for DOB correction in service records of a government servant, emphasizing strict adherence to Maharashtra Civil Service Rules.
Modi Car Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) Bombay High Court sets aside 69 Assessment Orders under MVAT Act, 2002 levying MVAT on registration charges, handling charges, insurance charges and incentives collected from customers with a direction to Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue on the basis of the decision of […]
Dharmendra M. Jani Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) HC held that provisions of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of the IGST Act are legal, valid and constitutional, provided that the provisions of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) are confined in their operation to the provisions of IGST Act only and the same cannot […]
Bombay High Court held that notice not setting out the material that provided the basis for assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law.
Mr Chawan clarifies that the concern is not about past dues, but about any incidence of tax on what the Petitioner now proposes. But if that is so, then clause (d) is entirely unjustified. It says nothing at all about tax liabilities. It only attempts to block the Petitioner from transacting the property because of the pendency of this Writ Petition. That is surely unreasonable, because the fact that this Writ Petition is pending cannot possibly be a clog on title.
