Principal Commissioner Goods and Services Tax Vs Premium Real Estate Developers (Delhi High Court) The case sought to be build up, by the appellant, in the present appeal, is that the learned Tribunal erred in not treating the respondent as providing “real estate agent”service, and in treating the transaction, between the respondent and Sahara, as […]
Seized stock-in-trade under Section 132 within the custody of the Income Tax authority must be released within 120 days. Since the action of Officer to seize jewellery without pre-existing and pre-recorded good reasons to believe was found to be grossly arbitrary, and the entire action was vitiated, in order to discourage the Officer from resorting to unwarranted action of search, Officer must bear the costs of Rs.50,000/- payable to Delhi Legal Service Authority.
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 […]
