Oasis Realty Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Ruling delivered recently by the Bombay High Court in case of Oasis Realty and 2 other petitioners (‘Petitioner’/Oasis’) [WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 23507 OF 2022] Issue involved: Whether the petitioner is required to comply with the requirements of Sub-section 6 of Section 107 of the Maharashtra […]
Bombay High Court held that mere change of view by the department, the respondent could not have been said to have either mis-declared or suppressed facts in classifying its goods at the time of its import and hence extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment cannot be done against a dead Assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Bombay High Court has held that a mere reference to a proposal containing an arbitration clause which was unilaterally signed by one party, would not amount to an arbitration agreement coming into existence between the parties. Suit filed before Trial Court stand restored.
Jai Matadi Enterprises Vs Commissioner of State Tax (Bombay High Court) In this case ITC was blocked in case of 10 suppliers, by Invoking GST Rule 86A. Bombay High Court vide interim order directed GST Department to unblock the Input Tax Credit Account. FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT 1.Ms. Vyas seeks […]
Held that circular no. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18th November 2019 shall be applicable only to applications filed electronically on the common portal but would have no applicability to an application for refund which is filed manually.
Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mohit Raghuram Hegde Proprietor Creative Infotech (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that mere valid arbitration clause exist in “terms and conditions” as mentioned in the website and mere allegation of fraud would not vitiate the constitution of arbitral […]
Held that duty demand unsustainable in absence of any evidence that job work charges paid by the company to the job workers flowed back to them and in absence of any evidence that that the Company is involved in clandestine removal of goods
Held that goods can be released provisionally under Section 110A of the Act, only in favour of an owner. Provisional release of goods is not possible if the ownership of the goods in question is not proved.
Bombay HC set aside the assessment orders under the Maharashtra VAT Act whereby a Developer was assessed as un-registered dealer for the periods from 2011-12 onwards
