Advent India PE Advisors Private Limited Vs Union of India and Ors. (Bombay High Court) Having regard to the statutory mandate in sub-rule (3) of rule 86A, the petitioner is entitled to claim that the input tax credit ought to have been unblocked immediately after one year of the restriction being imposed under sub-rule (1) […]
Ashok Kumar Meher Vs Commissioner of Sales Tax & GST (Orissa High Court) HC held that The plea of technical difficulties or technical glitches will not come in the way of the above order being given effect to. For this purpose a direction is issued to GSTN to either modify or make changes in the […]
Water Resources Development Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Bombay High Court) When the material on record is perused it becomes clear that in the reply to the show cause notice itself the appellant had stated that in view of exemption Notification No.74/1993 which was applicable to it till 31.3.1996, the appellant was not aware of […]
Small Industries Development Bank of India Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Bombay High Court) Bombay high court in income tax matter in case of SIDBI vs CBDT … Explaining at length operative impact of non obstante clause A non-obstante clause is generally appended to a Section with a view to give the enacting part […]
Bombay HC’s stern remarks on casual approach by Revenue in Amrutlal V. Rukhana Vs. Rao Ranvijay Singh, CIT. Lack of assistance results in loss of public money.
That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner’s case and after going through the facts of the Petitioner’s case hold and declare that impugned circular no. 125/44/201-GST dated 18.11.2019 in so far as it creates a condition that the refund application has to be filed online only as being wholly beyond the parent provisions (i.e. Section 54, section 16 and section 168(1) of CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017) and hence, ultra vires the Act;
Reopening of the assessment was questioned by the petitioner. The principal reason for reopening was advertisement and marketing expenditure incurred by the petitioner was not deductible in view of section 37, as petitioner was prohibited from advertising under the provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
River Valley Meadows and Township (P) Limited Vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) Bombay High Court quashed reassessment proceedings where reason approved one day after issue of notice u/s 148 In the present case, notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued for the A.Y. 2015-16 by the Jurisdictional assessing officer on […]
Premprakash Bansal Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Apprehending arrest in Crime No. 0178 of 2021 registered with APMC Police Station, Navi Mumbai for the offences punishable under Section 420, 406 and 34 of the I.P.C, Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail. 3. On 10th August, 2021, this Court declined […]
Unifab Engineering Project Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs Deputy Commissioner CGST And CEX (Bombay High Court) 1. A show cause-cum-demand notice dated July 29, 2021 issued by the Deputy Commissioner CGST & CEX, respondent no.1, is under challenge in this writ petition. By the impugned notice, explanation has been called for from the petitioners as […]
