Held that offences under Section 138 of the NI Act and Section 420 of IPC are distinct from each other because ingredients of the two offences are different. Person can be prosecuted under both the said sections.
Jammu & Kashmir HC clarifies non-filing of Section 8 application doesn’t waive arbitration rights. Anita Mehta seeks arbitrator appointment.
Commissioner of CGST Vs Narbada Industries (Jammu & Kashmir High Court) That no refund can be ordered against a party, if that party has not been unjustly enriched or when it has acquired the benefit lawfully. Since the assessee have got the benefit of refund lawfully under the prevailing law, they cannot be directed to […]
Parvaiz Ahmad Bhat Vs Fida Mohamamd Ayoub (Jammu and Kashmir High Court) The question whether stop payment instructions, which result in dishonor of a cheque, would amount to an offence under Section 138 of the NIA Act, was considered by the Supreme Court in M. M. T. C. Ltd. Vs. M/S Medchl Chemicals, (2001) 1 […]
Yasir Amin Khan Vs Abdul Rashid Ganie (Jammu and Kashmir High Court) Facts- Special Mobile Magistrate convicted a man and punished him with simple imprisonment for a term of 6 months in a cheque bounce case of INR 10 Lakhs and in addition, he was also held liable to pay compensation of INR 2 Lakhs […]
Zahoor Ahmad Bhat Vs Hirdesh Kumar (Jmmu And Kashmir High Court) The Division Bench judgment of this court dated 29.4.2021 passed in WP(C) No. 669/2021 connected with WP(C) No. 777/2021 inter alia provides as under: i) That a vehicle once registered in any state of India, shall not be required to be registered elsewhere in […]
MRF Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner Commercial Taxes and anr. (Jammu and Kashmir High Court) In the cases at hand, the documents on record reveal that every voucher provides for 1% turnover discount, meaning thereby that the discount has been actually allowed as per the agreement/understanding of the parties. The said discount stand deducted as a […]
Navneet R. Jhanwar Vs State Tax Officer and others (Jammu and Kashmir High Court) Admittedly, the claim for refund was initially sought to be rejected by respondent No.1 on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Section 54 of the Act provides a period of two years for making an application for refund from […]
Where the petitioner instead of submitting TRAN-1 form for claiming ITC submitted GSTR-3B. The court held that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of claiming the credit lying in its account on the stipulated date only on the basis of procedural or technical wrangles that one form TRAN-1 was not filled by the petitioner particularly when the petitioner has reflected the said credit in its return GSTR-3B.
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court declined to entertain pleas filed by the kin of former Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah challenging their alleged house arrest by the State. High Court held that In writ proceedings, a fact is to be supported and proved by authentic documentary evidence. Press cuttings cannot be relied upon as authentic documentary evidence.
