The Jharkhand High Court heard a petition seeking the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) and the entire criminal proceeding against Mr. Anupam Kumar Pathak, proprietor of M/S Maa Mahamaya Enterprises, in connection with a case of Goods and Services Tax (GST) evasion.
Jharkhand High Court held that as liability of earlier management cannot be shifted to current management, similarly, credit of earlier management cannot be shifted to current management. Hence, claim of transitional credit prior to the approval of the resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is not allowable.
Explore the recent Jharkhand High Court verdict on a money laundering case, Gopal Oraon Vs Union of India. Discover the court’s perspective on the lack of material evidence leading to the grant of bail.
Jharkhand HC in case of Shree Ram Agrotech has set aside demand order & consequent recovery proceedings in view of non-compliance with provisions regarding issuance of Show-Cause Notice and adjudication order as prescribed under GST law.
Jharkhand High Court held that ‘Provision for Warranty Expenses’ is allowable as business expense as large number of sophisticated goods were manufactured in past and if facts established show that defects existing in some of items manufactured and sold then provision for warranty is entitled to deduction.
In a case between Prakash Lal Khandelwal and CIT, Jharkhand High Court determined that a one-day delay in uploading an order or generating a DIN does not render an assessment order unsustainable.
Jharkhand High Court ruled that presumption under Section 24 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act can only be rebutted during trial stage
Jharkhand HC held that cancelled GST registration can be revoked until June 30, 2023, as per the notification issued by CBIC.
Jharkhand High Court held that it is mandatory to record reasons for initiation of proceedings under Section 35(7) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act (JVAT Act). Non-recording of the same makes the proceedings untenable in law.
HC directs AO to provide effective cross-examination opportunity in accordance with provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and permit petitioner to cross- examine without in any manner interfering or restricting.
