Tribunal/CESTAT is utterly unjustified in rejecting the appeal before it on a hyper-technical ground i.e. an apparent defect in the appeal format. Ordinarily a judicial tribunal – like CESTAT is expected to permit rectification of such an obvious error; that it instead chose to dismiss the appeal altogether is shocking to say the least.
M/s. Aadinath Industries & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) The Petitioner in that case had also filed the TRAN-I Form within the prescribed period. However, on account of an inadvertent error, the columns had not been correctly filled up and consequently, the ITC was not granted to the petitioner. The […]
Thus, we direct the respondent to either open the online portal so as to enable the petitioner to file the rectified TRAN-I Form electronically, or to accept the same manually with correction, on or before 20.09.2019.
Uninav Developers Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India And Ors (Delhi High Court) It was held that the entire GST system is still in a trial and error phase and it will be too much of a burden to place on the assessees to expect them to comply with the requirement of law where they […]
On analysing section 164(2) it was concluded that the same operates prospectively and a director would not demit office in terms of Section 167(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 on account of a disqualification incurred under Section 164(2) for conduct prior to the amendments to the Act introduced from May 7, 2018. Moreover, Central government had no power to cancel or deactivate the Director Identification Number (DIN) on account of a director suffering a disqualification under Section 164(2).
This Court has taken suo motu cognizance of incident of police firing as well as lathicharge by the police upon Advocates at Tis Hazari Courts Complex, New Delhi.
The Assessing Officer thus concluded that there was no nexus between the higher education expense of Ms. Esha Arya and the business of the assessee and accordingly disallowed the entire sum holding that it was not an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.
Bank cannot claim any amount from the customer when a transaction is shown to be a ‘disputed transaction’. The bank can recover from the customers only when it can unequivocally prove that the customer was responsible for such transaction, independently through the civil court. The RBI guidelines is a clear mandate to exonerate a customer in such ‘disputed transaction’.
Services provided by the payment gateway is such that the charges collected by it has to be necessarily treated as fees and not as a commission. The payment in fact is made by one principal to another and it is only being facilitated by the payment gateway by providing a service.
D. K. Shivakumar Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Delhi High Court) While dealing with the bail application, it is not in dispute that three factors have to be seen viz. i) flight risk, ii) tampering evidence iii) influencing witnesses. Regarding the flight risk, neither argued by learned Additional Solicitor General nor placed any material on record, […]
