Delhi High Court rejected granting of bail on medical ground stating that he applicant is not suffering from any life threatening condition or sickness or infirmity which involves danger to his life and for which treatment cannot be provided to the applicant in jail.
Delhi High Court concluded that Appellate Authority failed to consider the contention of the petitioner that there was no supply of service via-a-vis refund of GST. Accordingly, matter remanded to Appellate Authority.
Delhi High Court held that the respondent organizing trade fairs at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi is liable to pay entertainment tax. Accordingly, order passed by Financial Commissioner setting aside levy of entertainment tax held unsustainable.
Delhi High Court held that refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) in respect of telecommunication services rendered to inbound subscribers of Foreign Telecom Operators (FTOs) granted.
Assessee was denied travel permission as it was a case related to arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act) on 115 crores money laundering Case and assessee was seeking permission to travel abroad was allegedly to undergo, “Prophylactic Laser Retinopexy which was widely available in India, therefore, there was no ground to consider the prayer for travel abroad of assessee.
Delhi High Court held that the department after issuance of summons couldn’t arrest the respondent/accused unless warrants were issued by the Special Court on requisite grounds. The exercise of power of arrest by the department was totally unjustifiable. Accordingly, bail granted.
Delhi High Court orders re-adjudication for Assessment Year 2019-20, regarding income from the sale of khadi yarn, emphasizing verification of additional documents.
Delhi High Court ruled that attaching bank accounts in GST cases cannot be based on mere assumptions, and the law must be followed.
Delhi High Court granted the bail to the petitioner (Chartered Accountant) under Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2022 based on the plea of the petitioner that he has acted on the basis of information and records provided by his client.
Delhi High Court held that on account of lack of facts and material particulars, the relief as sought by the petitioner not granted. Concluded that if material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible.
