The issue under consideration is whether the Provisional Order of Attachment for Pending Adjudication is justified in law?
Shivshankar Solvent Extraction Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Commercial Tax Civil Lines (Chhattisgarh High Court) The issue under consideration is whether High Court can give relaxation from mandatory deposit of tax u/s Section 48(4)(ii) before filing appeal in front of Tribunal? Appellant is registered under VAT. Suo-Moto proceedings were initiated by Commissioner. In the proceeding F-form […]
Chhattisgarh High Court observed that, under valuation of a goods in the invoice cannot be a ground for detention of the goods and vehicle for a proceeding to be drawn under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (
Under valuation of a good in the invoice could not be a ground for detention of the goods and vehicle for a proceeding to be drawn under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017.
Chhattisgarh HC rules the State is liable for gratuity to teachers of aided institutions. Order dated 07.06.2013 challenged by educational institutions.
This Court does not find any substance in the arguments of the petitioner, when they say that the investigation and the proceedings now initiated is one, which hit by Section 6(2)(1)(b) of the CGST Act of 2017. What has also to be appreciated is the fact that there is a clear distinction between a proceeding drawn for the demand of tax evaded by the petitioner-establishment and the investigation be conducted by the Department of the DG, GST Intelligence Wings in respect of an offence committed by an establishment by way of using bogus and fake invoices and illegally availing ITCs, which the petitioner-establishment otherwise was ineligible.
The Petitioner herein accordingly is directed to continue depositing the Cess amount as per revised rate under protest as they have been doing in the past. The said deposit would be subject to the outcome of the Civil Appeals by the Honble Supreme Court.
Prospective accused has no right of hearing before registration of FIR and investigation by the police officer or before the Court including the writ Court, therefore, in a writ petition seeking direction for registration of FIR and investigation into a cognizable offence, the prospective accused is neither necessary nor a proper party.
In the given case the relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition is for issuance of a writ to the respondents granting permission to the petitioner to submit TRAN-1 form electronically by opening electronic portal or in the alternative allow the petitioner to tender the form manually and thereafter the petitioner’s claim be assessed for input tax credit in accordance with law
Tulsiram Vs ACIT (Benami Prohibition) (Chhattisgarh High Court) To decide the core issue whether the amended Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 can be made applicable for initiating proceedings against the petitioner in respect of the properties which were purchased or acquired prior to 01.11.2016, it would be necessary to read the Prohibition of Benami […]
