Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Sonepat & Ors Vs Amit Decorative Plywoods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Settlement Commission could not have returned these findings, which could only have emerged from a formal adjudicatory process. The findings of the Settlement Commission, amount, in effect, to ignoring the statements of suppliers of […]
Subject to final outcome of the writ petition, we permit the petitioner to rectify the return in GSTR 1 Form for the period November, 2017 in respect of the six recipients noted in the tabulation hereinabove, by correcting their GSTIN Nos.
The factual position in the present case is not any different and thus, we allow the present petition and direct the respondents to either open the online portal so as to enable the petitioner to file the Form TRAN-1 electronically, or to accept the same manually on or before 20.11.2019.
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.
