A landmark judgement pronounced in the Delhi High Court on 05th May 2020 in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd Vs. Union of India & Ors in Appeal W.P.(C) 6345/2018, CM APPL. 45505/2019. High Court allowed petitioner to rectify Form GSTR 3B for the period July 2017 to September 2017. Issue Covered: Rule 61(5), Form […]
Delhi High Court held that the failure of the Government to operationalise the statutory returns, GSTR 2, 2A and 3 prescribed under the CGST Act, cannot prejudice the assessee. The GSTR 3B which was merely a summary return as an alternative did not have the statutory features of the returns prescribed under the Act.
Rule 117 of CGST Rules is directory in nature, insofar as it prescribes the time-limit for transitioning of credit and therefore, the same would not result in the forfeiture of the rights, in case the credit is not availed within the period prescribed.
It has become impossible for the petitioner to effect recoveries of debts, owed to it by various institutions, which, in the submission of Mr. Nayar, aggregate to over Rs. 3 crores. In view thereof, the submission of Mr. Nayar is that, as the lockdown has been presently extended till 3rd May, 2020, this matter may be re-notified thereafter and ad interim direction be issued, restraining any coercive action being taken against his client, towards the loans allegedly owed by it, which stand set out in tabular form at page 64 of the writ petition.
The object of issuing notifications/circulars dated 27.03.2020 and 17.04.2020 was to provide financial relief in repayment due to COVID-19 to the parties who have availed the term loans and working capital facilities but this relief is not extended towards factoring facilities.
The Court, in the present case, had appropriately restrained the Suit filed by the Defendant before the Eastern District of New York on the ground of being vexatious and oppressive. Further the Court rightly considered that Domain name is akin to a Trademark.
Principle of, a mutual Will coming into effect and binding also the testator who may still be alive, on the death of one of the two testators, is well enshrined in the Indian Law.
Hon’ble Court opined that irrespective of the question, as to whether the moratorium as envisaged by RBI would be applicable to the petitioner qua the instalments, any classification of the petitioner’s accounts as NPA in present situation would certainly cause a grave and irreparable loss to the Petitioner.
In the given case, the writ petitioner has requested Income Tax Department for the adjournment of 3 weeks to respond to the show cause notice on account of the lockdown declared by the Government of India across India so as to effectively deal with the Covid-19 pandemic.
PCIT Vs MLS CBRE South Asia Private Limited ((Delhi High Court) So far as the amount of Rs.4,73,39,848/- being the excess. Remuneration paid to Sh. Anshuman Magazine is concerned, we find the assessee has obtained approval of the competent authority though on 18.07.2011 i.e. much after the date on which such remuneration has been paid. In […]
