Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Union of India And Ors (Bombay High Court) Petitioner is impugning an order dated 29th October 2021 passed by respondent no.3 rejecting petitioner’s application for amendment of the 13 bills of entry that petitioner had filed when importing certain goods. It is petitioner’s case that in the bills of entry as […]
HC noted that this is one more case where respondents have passed such order under GST without applying its mind and without considering records.
Bombay High Court held that interest or penalty due to delayed payment of tax cannot be levied in absence of specific provisions. Therefore, no interest and penalty can be levied on the portion of payment pertaining to surcharge, CVD and SAD.
Bombay High Court in a bail application relating to money laundering matter held that the material on record does indicate that the Applicant has been suffering from multiple ailments. Further, the Applicant appears to have roots in society. The possibility of fleeing away from justice seems remote. Accordingly, bail granted
Sheetal Dilip Jain Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Bombay High Court) Bombay High Court held that minimum 30 days time should be granted to file reply in all cases of issuance of SCN under Section 73 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It will equally apply to Section 73 and 74 […]
HC held that, GST Notice which failed to mention allegations of fake invoices against assessee is not valid and warned department to strictly give proper training to officers.
Oasis Realty Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Ruling delivered recently by the Bombay High Court in case of Oasis Realty and 2 other petitioners (‘Petitioner’/Oasis’) [WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 23507 OF 2022] Issue involved: Whether the petitioner is required to comply with the requirements of Sub-section 6 of Section 107 of the Maharashtra […]
Bombay High Court held that mere change of view by the department, the respondent could not have been said to have either mis-declared or suppressed facts in classifying its goods at the time of its import and hence extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment cannot be done against a dead Assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Bombay High Court has held that a mere reference to a proposal containing an arbitration clause which was unilaterally signed by one party, would not amount to an arbitration agreement coming into existence between the parties. Suit filed before Trial Court stand restored.
