Tufropes Pvt Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) One fact very clearly emerges from the documents annexed to the petition and the affidavits is that the advance licences of petitioner were invalidated for direct import of relevant HDPE/P Granules / Chips and petitioner was allowed to procure the same indigenously from Reliance Industries […]
Since the nature of activities conducted by the Board Of Control for Cricket in India were commercial activities, therefore, the appellant Board was covered by the provisions of ESIC Act and was liable to pay ESI contribution on the wages paid to the coverable employees.
PCIT Vs Emarsso Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) The learned Counsel for the Appellant-Revenue present in Court states that Advocate who filed the appeals is no longer on the panel of the Department and they seek time to take instructions as to who will be assigned with the matter and to file vakalatnama. 2. […]
There cannot be any justification for the ONGC to withhold any amount on the premise that it has a claim of unliquidated damages against the petitioner
HC directed the respondents to open the portal to file, revise or re-revise TRAN 1 return, if it is possible or feasible.
Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The word ‘case”’ used in Section 127-B of the Customs Act, 1962 is defined u/s 127-A(b) to mean any proceeding under this Act or any other Act for the levy, assessment and collection of customs duty, pending before an adjudicating authority on the date […]
Held that agreement would not be discharged by death of the party thereto and will be enforceable by or against the heirs of the deceased. Accordingly, present arbitration application allowed.
Held that this Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot entertain or adjudicate upon such issues based on additional facts not advanced earlier. Writ petition not entertained on the ground of the petitioner has not availed of alternative efficacious remedy available under section 26 of the MVAT Act.
Bombay High Court in the case of Okay Paper Products Pvt. Ltd. Has allowed the revision of TRAN – 1 form on the online portal and directed the Government to open the form within 2 weeks.
This liability of GST (taxes) was certainly not in contemplation of the parties when they entered into the contract in the year 2001. MCGM who would be liable to pay the GST to the Government on a Reverse Charge basis and the same cannot be deducted from the dues payable to the Applicant.
