V. M. Singh Vs Madan Lal Mangotra (Delhi High Court) In view the advisories issued by the High Court, petitioner cannot be asked to appear physically unless the advisory is modified by the High Court, however, recently the High Court has issued a fresh advisory that in case parties do not appear even through virtual […]
S R Dass Vs Cpio And Nodal Officer (Delhi High Court) The learned counsels for the respondents, however, again reiterates that the documents of a third party are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act. They submit that a reply on the similar terms had also been issued to the petitioner vide letter […]
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the case of P.V. Rao vs. Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGSTI [W.P.(C.) No. 8975/2020 (dated, November 18, 2020)] denied relief to P.V. Rao (Petitioner) from appearing physically in Delhi to record statement in alleged GST evasion case and held that judicial interference at this threshold stage, in such matters relating […]
The present petition is filed to seek a writ of Mandamus to direct Respondent No. 1, the Senior Intelligence Officer, Director General of GST Intelligence (“DGGSTI”) to allow the Petitioner to tender his statement and adduce evidence through video conferencing, in relation to a summon issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Vikas WSP Ltd. & Ors. Vs Directorate Enforcement & Anr. (Delhi High Court) Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (ACT) empowers the Director or any other officer not below the rank of the Deputy Director authorized by the Director of Enforcement in this regard, to pass an order […]
Nautilus Metal Crafts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (Delhi High Court) The Show Cause Notice was for ‘availing Special MEIS benefits fraudulently by mis-declaration and forgery of documents’. The petitioner in its reply had categorically submitted that it had not claimed or submitted any documents for grant of Special MEIS benefits […]
PCIT Vs Akshit Kumar (Delhi High Court) ITAT observed that in the impugned AY 2014-15, the audited balance-sheet reflected an opening stock of Rs. 19,53,29,660/- which stood accepted by the Department either under the scrutiny proceedings or by not selecting the return for scrutiny or by not taking any action to disturb such returned income. […]
Kiran Gupta Vs State Bank of India & Anr. (Delhi high Court) Whether a Bank/Financial Institution can institute or continue with proceedings against a Guarantor under the SARFAESI Act, when proceedings under the IBC have been initiated against the Principal Borrower & the same are pending adjudication? Section 128 of the Contract Act provides that […]
Petitioner states that the refund has been denied to the petitioner on the sole ground that petitioner had exported goods through Foreign Post Offices in August and September 2017, while Notification dated 04th June, 2018 read with circular no. 14/2018-Customs dated 04.06.2018 has notified exports by post Regulations, 2018 w.e.f. 21st June, 2018 which provides for an entry to be presented to proper officer at the Foreign Post Office of clearance.
The issue under consideration is whether the denial of the refund to the petitioner against exports of goods outside India on the sole ground that petitioner had exported goods through Foreign Post Offices is justified in law?
