Section 73 and 74 of CGST Act also provide for recovery of refund where the same has been erroneously granted.
Delhi High Court held that filing of multiple patent claims in respect of the same invention amounts to evergreening or layering of patent protection, which is impermissible under the Indian Patent Law.
Delhi High Court held that as per explanation inserted to Condition No. 104, exemption condition would be satisfied if the aircraft imported is used for non-scheduled (passenger) services or non-scheduled (charter) services. Accordingly, use of imported aircraft by non-scheduled (passenger) services, shall not be construed to be a violation of conditions of imports at concessional rate of duty.
Shukla Enterprises Private Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Writ petition is directed against order dated 29.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Besides this, challenge is also laid to the show cause notice dated 25.05.2022 issued under Section 148 A(b) of […]
Delhi High Court held that impugned order directing GAIL to pay a sum of money which is not due and payable by GAIL is not sustainable.
Record shows that reassessment proceedings have been triggered based on information received by respondent/revenue via a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP).
Show cause notice must clearly state allegations that concerned noticee has to meet. Any notice that does not qualify this criterion, cannot be considered as a SCN
Delhi High Court held that Notifications withdrawing the exemption from the ECOs and making the levy of GST, on the fare of non-air-conditioned stage carriage ticket booked through the electronic platform like UBER is constitutionally valid.
G S Industries Vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax (Delhi High Court) The principal question that falls for consideration by this Court is whether the benefit of Order-in-appeal dated 03.01.2022 can be denied to the petitioner and the refund amount be withheld solely on the ground that the respondent has decided to file an […]
Delhi High Court held that section 3(9) of the DVAT Act does not specifically provide a time-frame for submission of documents. Accordingly, relevant documents with respect to possession of goods by person found in custody of goods should be submitted within a reasonable time.
