But the moot question raised in the writ petition is whether a provisional attachment of bank account can be continued beyond the period of one year?
Dimension Data India Private Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs And Anr. (Bombay High Court) The expression “mistake” appearing in section 154 of the Customs Act may be defined as something done unintendedly or through inadvertence. The section itself says that the error in any decision or order should be due to any accidental slip or […]
Tejas Pravin Dugad Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The Petitioners are directors of M/s. Ganraj Ispat Private Limited company and the company is registered under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Laws) (the Act). It has registered office at Supa, District Nagar, Maharashtra. One Tushar Munot, sole […]
Sanjiv Madhusudan Shah Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central and Service Tax and Ors. (Bombay High Court) Challenge made in this writ petition is to the notice to show cause cum demand issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST), Mumbai West dated 28.12.2020 seeking to levy service tax upon the petitioner […]
Sahara Hospitality Limited Vs State Of Maharashtra And Others (Bombay High Court) Heard Mr. Gautam Ankhad, learned counsel along with Mr. Patkar, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Ms. Chavan, learned AGP for the respondents. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed legality and validity of […]
Advertisements on TV channels which were propagating that there were special, miraculous and supernatural properties/qualities in Hanuman Chalisa Yantra were illegal and such propagation, advertisement falls under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013.
Because the Commissioner is conferred with the power of provisional attachment under section 83 it would not ipso-facto mean that he can straight away proceed to provisionally attach any property including bank accounts of a taxable person merely on the ground of pendency of proceedings under section 67.
GGS Infrastructure Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Bombay High Court) Once a resolution plan is approved by the committee of creditors by the requisite percentage of voting and the same is thereafter sanctioned by the adjudicating authority (Tribunal in this case), the same is binding on all the stakeholders including the […]
State Bank of India Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) In our considered view the facts in the case at hand being similar to the facts in the case of ASREC (India) Limited (Supra) that decision would squarely be applicable to the facts of this case that if any Central statute creates priority of […]
Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) Before issuance of certificates under section 197 of the Act, the same must be preceded by an order. That order must disclose reasons and is an order passed in exercise of quasi-judicial powers. Such an order can be assailed in revision under section 264 of the […]
