Bombay High Court held that insisting on bank guarantees for differential duty justifiable based on finding of SVB (Special Valuation Branch) that petitioner is undervaluing its import from related party.
Once proceedings are barred by limitation under a statue the legislative mandate cannot be overcome by issuing a writ under Article 226 of Constitution of India contrary to legislative mandate.
Bombay High Court held that revenue failed to establish that the area of residential units was more than 1000 sq. ft. accordingly deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act duly available.
Explore Apar Industries vs Union of India case in Bombay High Court. Petition on transition and distribution of CENVAT Credit. Key details and court directives.
R. K. Copper and Alloy LLP Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Applications for refund of IGST and duty drawback on export of Goods. However, on the ground that some investigation is pending, the applications were not processed. The Hon’ble High Court referred to Circular dated 23/01/2020, Press release dated 29/10/2017 and Circular No. […]
Hede Ferrominas Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Firstly, the Petitioner did not bother to file any returns during Assessment Year 2015-16. Secondly, the Petitioner did not bother to file any response to the notice dated 27.03.2021 seeking to reopen the assessment within the time limit allowed to the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed returns […]
Shekhar P. Vernekar Vs Commissioner of State Tax (Bombay High Court at Goa) 1. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner on this petition which assails an order dated 30 July 2021 passed under Section 53 of the Goa Value Added Tax Act, 2005 read with Rule 55 of the Rules whereby Commissioner of […]
Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors (Bombay high Court) The present petition has been filed in relation to the procedural difficulties/objections raised with regard to distribution and eligibility of Input Service Distributor (ISD) credit of Service Tax under Section 140 of the CGST Act 2017. It is petitioner’s case is that […]
Action on the part of the Respondents in not issuing notice granting reasonable time to the Petitioner to remain present and passing ex parte Order is passed in gross violation of principle of natural justice.
Petitioner seeks an order and direction against to it to rectify inadvertent mistake in mentioning incorrect place of supply in Form GSTR1
