Bombay High court held that rejection of SVLDRS-1 application alleging wrong Commissionerate is unjustified as at the time of filing application, petitioner didn’t had option to file or change the Commissionerate.
Tejus Vertrage Infra LLP Vs Union of India & Ors (Bombay High Court) Period of limitation which was extended under the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 also apply to the claim for refund. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the decision […]
Bombay High Court dismissed PIL in absence of any absolute evidence or live link between the alleged malpractices in the B.M.C and private respondents.
Bombay High Court held that initiation of re-assessment proceedings in violation of the procedure prescribed under section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act i.e. without supplying requisite material is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
Bombay High Court held that SVLDR Scheme covers not only tax but also interest, penalty. Hence, declaration under SVLDR in respect of notice issued for interest duly allowable.
CIDCO were the best judge to consider compliance with technical and financial conditions. MSETCL was consulted by CIDCO, both on account of the fact that the project had been undertaken by CIDCO on behalf of MSETCL as well as the execution of the same under the supervision of MSETCL. Therefore, the order of CIDCO was upheld in holding BNC to be technically qualified.
Petitioner approached HC against order passed by appellate authority as GST Tribunal has not been constituted till date. Revenue contended that writ petition should not be admitted in wake of alternate remedy.
Chandra Developers Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Whether the commissioner could issue show cause notice when the discharge certificate has not been withdrawn by the designated committee, the enquiry was not initiated prior to 30.06.2019 (cut off date). The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. The petitioner was a service provider. It […]
Bombay High Court held that present case is not a case of lack of enquiry, however, it can be a case of inadequate enquiry. Accordingly, inadequacy of enquiry does not give jurisdiction to the CIT to invoke provisions of Section 263 prior to the insertion of Explanation 2.
Bombay High Court dismissed the present petition as petitioner has the option to file a statutory appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and there is no reason why petitioner cannot avail of the statutory remedy of appeal.
