Firmenich Aromatics Production (India) Private Limited Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) 1. The petitioner is a private limited company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, is aggrieved by the action of the respondent authority in rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner vide order dated 29/07/2022 and upholding the refund […]
Detention of goods & conveyance – interaction, interplay and inter se application of Section 129 and Section 130 of CGST Act, 2017
Seeking grant of Regular bail – Firms availed ITC on the basis of invoices received without actual receipt of goods from 7 registered entities
Map Refoils India Limited Vs National E-Assessment Centre (Gujarat High Court) No draft assessment along with show cause notice as required under section 144B(1) and section 144B(7) is given to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to give explanation for proposed addition during the hearing before the National Faceless Assessment Centre. Section 144B(1)(xii) […]
Gujarat High Court held that provisions of section 179 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked simply because the directors of the private limited company have failed to deposit 20% of the demand raised in the assessment order to get stay from the appellate authority.
HC held that Prima facie, having read the provisions of Sec.12 (2) of the I.B.C and the contents of the order under challenge which extensively quoted the observations of the adjudicating authority, it is evident that there cannot be any negligence attributed to the petitioner who was to follow the provisions of Sub-sec.2 of Sec.12 of I.B.C.
Petitioner is desirous of going to the Appellate Authority for questioning and challenging the assessment which has been finalized and that being his right, if he has missed out on the limitation, condoning this period of limitation in the given circumstance, keeping the larger issue open, this petition is allowed.
By way of interim relief, it is directed that the respondents shall release the goods and conveyance of the petitioner, confiscated and detained pursuant to the aforementioned order No. 8 dated 21.04.2022 passed in FORM GST MOV-11
It was further pointed out by the petitioner that the respondent – workman cannot be termed as workman within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
Bijal Dhimankumar Vyas Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) The Designated committee (DC) did not consider the amount of pre-deposit made during investigation. The High Court held that the CESTAT had granted stay to the Petitioner on the basis of payment of pre-deposit. Thus, this deposit is not in dispute. The rejection was set […]
