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 […]
Subha Jakkanwar vs State of Chhattisgarh (High Court Chhattisgrh) An Advocate cannot be prosecuted for criminal offences for non-exhibiting greater professional care and competence while submitting non-encumbrance certificate to a Bank. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT 1. The short question that emanates for consideration is, whether an Advocate acting professionally and in […]
Kumar Saurav Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court) Out of 100 questions, as much as 41 questions/answers have wrongly been framed. Re-examination ordered. Carelessness will always have a price. Considering the degree and percentage of defects in the question papers which according to this Court as much as 41 wrong questions/answers have been found […]
Smt. Krishana Kumari Devi Vs Harihar Chandra Bhanjdeo (Chhattisgarh High Court) It is, indisputably and fairly well settled that private was to remain with him under the covenant/agreement executed with the GOI and the said property has to pass on from one Ruler to another in terms of Article 5 of the agreement. It would […]
Ramji Bharti Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court) The constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and others AIR 1967 S.C. 1910 held that it is true that the Government cannot amend or supersede the statutory rules by administrative instruction, but if the rules are silent on any […]
