Principal Commissioner Vs Reliance Industries Ltd. (Gujarat High Court) Generation of LPG, a by-product, cannot hinder the fact that entire quantity of input and input services used for manufacture of dutiable product Facts- The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods like Motor Spirit, High Speed Diesel, LPG etc. It is the case […]
Pravin Talakshibhai Kotak Vs PCIT (Gujarat High Court) HC held that Principal Commissioner shall look into all documents which are on record and take an appropriate call as regards the attachment of the property-in-question. FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, […]
Condoning delay of 3330 Days HC held that a party should not suffer due to inaction of advocate & matter should be decided on merits
Bajaj Finance Ltd. Vs LD. District Collector (Gujarat High Court) On perusal of the section 26E and Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, it is clear that the District Magistrate has to discharge the ministerial act of providing assistance to the secured creditor to take physical possession of the secured assets when the secured creditor has […]
Madhav Copper Limited Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Mr. Bairagar, the learned AGP, wants the writ applicant to apply for revocation of the cancellation of registration in the requisite Form GST REG 21 Online at the GST common portal in accordance with the provisions of Section 30 of the GGST Act read with […]
Interest paid for the delay in depositing the awarded amount allowed by the MACT in the accident case would not form part of the compensation and, therefore, would fall into the bracket of interest income and would be eligible to tax under the normal provisions.
Ashvinkumar Ramniklal Jani Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Apex Court in the case of Gangahanume Gowda Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 40 has decided the interest on delayed payment of gratuity. It is also held that the same is mandatory and not discretionary. When it is not […]
The impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was also issued at Cuttack. The return of income for the A. Y. 2015-16 was also filed at Cuttack. The final assessment order dated 29th December 2017 for the A. Y. 2015-16 was also passed at Cuttack. We are of the view that we should not entertain this writ application and relegate the writ applicant to file an appropriate writ application before the High Court of Orrissa at Cuttack.
Munjaal Manishbhai Bhatt Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) HC held that impugned Paragpragh 2 of the Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 and identical notification under the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which provide for a mandatory fixed rate of deduction of 1/3rd of total consideration towards the value of […]
While analyzing Section 28A(4) of the Customs Act, the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd., has held that the provision must be construed as conferring the power of such review on the same officer or his successor who has been assigned the function of assessment. An officer who did the assessment could only undertake reassessment and after extensive analysis, the Court held that the entire proceeding initiated by the Additional Director, General of DRI by issuing show cause notices in all the matters are invalid, without any authority of law and liable to be set aside and accordingly, ensuing demands also have been set aside.
