We may mention that demat accounts of the petitioners have been frozen for non-payment of annual listing fee which has been quantified at Rs.14,16,000/- for the period from 2015-16 to 2019-20. Against the freezing of demat accounts, petitioners preferred appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal.
Sabareesh Pallikere Vs Jurisdictional Designated Committee (Bombay High Court) In so far the present case is concerned, we may refer to the first statement of the petitioner recorded on 06.07.2018. In this statement, he categorically admitted that the total service tax liability of the petitioner for the period 2013-14 to 2017-18 (upto June, 2017) would […]
Heard Mr. Jas Sanghavi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sham Walve along with Mr. Ram Ochani, learned counsel for the respondents.
We had noticed that the Commissioner may authorize arrest of a person only if he has reasons to believe that such a person has committed any offence under the clauses mentioned therein.
Bhoomi Developers Vs Union Of India & Ors. (High Court Bombay) Issue raised in the present writ petition i.e. eligibility of the petitioner or maintainability of its declaration to avail the benefits of the scheme under the category of investigation, enquiry or audit on the ground that amount of the service tax dues of the […]
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Vs Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Whether for the period prior to 01.03.2006, service tax is recoverable on entire interest component collected as equated monthly installments on transactions relating to ‘Financial Leasing Services including equipment leasing and hire-purchase’, in absence of any mechanism to bifurcate the […]
Sabka Vishwas (LDR) Scheme – Statement by Director during enquiry is admission of liability: The Bombay High Court has reiterated that for eligibility under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, the quantification need not be on completion of investigation by issuing show-cause notice or the amount that may be determined upon adjudication before the cut-off date.
We direct that until decision is taken on the objection filed by the petitioners by respondent No.2, petitioner No.1 shall maintain a balance of Rs. 5,00,000.00 in the escrow account out of the share belonging to the petitioner No.1. In effect, we lift the provisional attachment in so far as petitioner No. 1’s share in the escrow account is concerned subject to maintaining credit balance of Rs. 5,00,000.00 by petitioner No. 1 out of its share and direct that respondent No.4 would be at liberty to transfer / remit the proportionate amount due to petitioner No. 1 to the account of petitioner No.1 and maintain balance of Rs. 5,00,000.00 till the aforementioned decision is taken.
If it is proved by the applicant accused that his health condition is not good then I do not intend to arrest the applicant accused subject to his cooperation in investigation on following points – i) If the applicant accused is ready to share all the credential of crypto wallet and relevant information. ii) If the applicant accused is ready to deposit Rs.1,25,32,691.00 (Liability of the applicant accused) to the Hon’ble Court. iii) If the applicant accused is ready to submit his property details, bank account, mail credentials.
Where Input Tax Credit (ITC) had been wrongly availed exceeds Rs.5 crores it would amount to a cognizable and non-bailable offense and the offence was punishable with imprisonment for a term, which could extend to five years and with fine under section 132 (1) (i) of the CGST Act.
