Explore the recent Gujarat High Court case involving Dharmdeep Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and the State of Gujarat, addressing challenges in claiming GST refunds due to technical issues with the GSTN portal.
In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court has echoed the Supreme Courts decision in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal, wherein it addressed a group of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Notification No. 20/2021 dated 31.03.2021 as well as Notification No. 38/2021 dated 27.04.2021 and consequential notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
Gujarat High Court rules that authorities must adhere to court directions. Analysis of Real Price Spintex vs Union of India case.
Petitioner challenged notice on grounds of violating principles of natural justice, citing vagueness and lack of specificity. Court, echoing its earlier decisions upheld the need for detailed and specific show-cause notices.
Gujarat High Court held that charge in favour of secured creditor would precede over the unsecured creditor. Thus, secured creditor will have first charge over the property as against State Government (crowns debt).
Gujarat High Court declares GST registration cancellation notice invalid due to lack of details. Learn about the case – Akshar Enterprise Vs State of Gujarat.
Gujarat High Court held that as agreement entered into is for the development of infrastructure facility and not the works contract hence assessee is eligible to avail deduction available under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act.
Gujarat High Court rules in Amit Hospital Pvt Ltd vs PCIT, stating that Section 119(2)(b) applications can’t be rejected based on vague reasons for Income Tax Act, 1961.
The petitioner asserts that the draft assessment order, a prerequisite under Section 144B(xxi), was not provided, depriving them of the opportunity to contest and resulting in a substantial demand.
Gujarat High Court issues notice on challenge to the second extension of GST notice time limit by New India Acid Baroda Pvt. Ltd. for alleged S. 168A violation in 2023.
