Held that services are supplied to Foreign Telecom Operators and hence place of supply of service will be location of service receiver as per section 13(2). Provisions of section 13(3)(b) are not attracted as the services are not provided to the individual.
Bombay High Court held that importers who fall under Notification No. 27/02-Cus dated 1st March 2002 are not entitled to any drawback under Section 74 of Customs Act 1962.
The show cause notice does not even allege that petitioner has obtained registration by fraud or willful misstatement or suppression of facts. There is a digital signature appended in the said document which says signature is not verified. Therefore, we have to take it to be an unsigned document. We fail to understand how it can be an official document.
HC held that We fail to understand, prima facie, as to how the authorities get this power to take away amount from anybody’s account without account holder’s permission or even after taking away the money, they would not even consider it necessary to inform the account-holder that money from their account has been debited. This is nothing but high handedness and gross abuse of power.
Held that the State of Maharashtra has legislative competence to enact amendment to incorporate a condition/modifying the earlier condition for entertaining an appeal for a mandatory pre-deposit for filing appeals against the assessment orders pertaining to all the goods after 16th September 2016
Devendra Prakash Shah Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) 1. We have heard Mr. P. B. Shah, learned advocate appearing in support of this writ petition. 2. Having read the averments made in the writ petition and the relief claimed therein, we are of the considered prima facie view that because of the lapse […]
Sanjeevkumar S/o Biharilal Kabra Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) 1. The matter is placed on board for speaking to minutes in respect of order dated 22.04.2022 passed by this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks clarification of the order, more particularly in so far as directions issued in paragraph no.43 […]
Tufropes Pvt Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) One fact very clearly emerges from the documents annexed to the petition and the affidavits is that the advance licences of petitioner were invalidated for direct import of relevant HDPE/P Granules / Chips and petitioner was allowed to procure the same indigenously from Reliance Industries […]
Since the nature of activities conducted by the Board Of Control for Cricket in India were commercial activities, therefore, the appellant Board was covered by the provisions of ESIC Act and was liable to pay ESI contribution on the wages paid to the coverable employees.
PCIT Vs Emarsso Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) The learned Counsel for the Appellant-Revenue present in Court states that Advocate who filed the appeals is no longer on the panel of the Department and they seek time to take instructions as to who will be assigned with the matter and to file vakalatnama. 2. […]
