In the given case, the applicant is facing charges under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for which maximum sentence is of five years. Hence the applicant wanted to apply for regular bail.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations made against the applicant in the FIR and considering the admitted position that the applicant is arrested on 08.07.2019 and the fact that till date even after passage of 60 days, neither any complaint nor chargesheet is filed and therefore, the applicant would be entitled for default bail, without going into detail at this stage
A perusal of Section 94 shows that there is no power conferred upon the Central Government to make any Rules or Notifications for extraterritorial events; or in other words, for services rendered and consumed beyond the “taxable territory” i.e. beyond India. Obviously, the Act itself is not applicable to the territories other than India and therefore the Executives cannot have any power to make Rules for territories beyond India.
M/s. Siddharth Enterprises Vs NODAL Officer (Gujarat High Court) Hon’ble High Court held that Transitional credit can’t be denied only because form Tran 1/ Tran 2 couldn’t not be filed. Requirement of filing of Trans 1 and Trans 2 returns is procedural in nature and not mandatory and therefore right of transitional credit can not […]
Pranit Hem Desai Vs Additional Director General (Gujarat High Court) Section 83 of the State GST Act empowers the Assessing Authority to make a provisional attachment of any property of the assessee during the pendency of any proceeding for the assessment or reassessment of any turnover, even though there is no demand outstanding against the […]
Gujarat High Court has held that the power under Section 83 of the Central GST Act, 2017 is a drastic power which should be used sparingly and only on substantive weighty grounds. It observed that attachment of bank accounts and trading assets should be the last resort, and that blockage of input tax credit by way of computer entry was illegal.
Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to stay any recovery proceedings for the recovery of late fees for late filing of Form GSTR-3B for the period 1st July 2017 to 30th September 2018 for which returns are furnished between 1st July, 2017 to 21st December, 2018;
Notice under section 148 issued to a dead person could not be continued against the legal representatives and moreover, section 292B also could not be resorted to.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Vs Ankur Protein Industries Ltd. (Gujarat High Court) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in allowing carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation following Circular No. 14 of 2001 without appreciating that the amendment to the Finance Act was prospective? Current depreciation is deductible in the […]
M H Khanusiya Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Levy of Entry Tax at the rate of 12.5% treating Excavators as motor vehicles and/or at par with the motor vehicles is hereby held to be illegal, discriminatory, violative of Article 304(a) of the Constitution of India and against the object and purpose of the […]
