The period of 7 days prescribed in rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules for moving the objections to the provisional attachment is merely directory and not mandatory.
Reopening of assessment was justified in case of EDPL as there were sufficient ‘reasons to believe’ that income had escaped assessment and the bar to reopening of proceedings after expiry of four years from the date of final assessment order, under the proviso, did not apply in assessee’s case and there was no requirement to issue two separate notices in the name of amalgamated company (i) as successor-in-interest of the amalgamating company and (ii) in its individual capacity as EDIPL had ceased to exist as a separate entity.
Lakshmi Satyanarayana Dutt Tadikonda Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) In the given case, the petitioner is seeking the withdrawal of the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him and no other prayer has been pressed during the course of the arguments by the Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner […]
The issue under consideration is whether the Public notice issued by DGFT for restricting the issuance of Advance Authorisation is justified in law?
Sale of Amway, Oriflame, etc. on e-commerce platforms like Amazon was permissible for ensuring free flow of trade as the Direct Selling Guidelines were merely advisory in nature.
Since offences pertaining to the non-disclosure of the documents which were required under Indian Accounting Standards (IndAS) alleged against assessee- chartered accountant were serious in nature which involved fraud to the tune of several crores and the offence being an economic one which affected the economy of the nation, assessee was not entitled for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C and Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Pitambra Books Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) The present petition inter-alia impugns Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST dated 15.03. 2018 and Circular No. 125/44/19-GST dated 18.11.2019. Mr. Puneet Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that owing to the restrictions imposed in the aforenoted circulars, Petitioner has been deprived of the […]
Sales Tax Bar Association (Regd.) & Anr Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in respect of the financial year 2018-19, the GSTR 9, GSTR 9A and GSTR 9C Form have still not been uploaded and, consequently, even though the last date of filing of the same […]
The insertion of sub-section (1A) in Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, the only change that has been brought about is that the District Magistrate/CMM has now the discretion to appoint even their subordinate officers as receivers. Pertinently, sub-section (1A) of Section 14 does not bar the appointment of advocates as receivers. The same position obtains vis-à-vis Rule 8(3) of The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, which has been cited in the aforementioned judgment of the Bombay High Court.
In the given case, the Petitioner who is a regular income tax assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2011-12. The Assessing Officer issued under section 133(6) of the Act, called for certain information from the assessee.
