Badiger Raghavendra Vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) Petitioner, a ‘registered supplier’ under section 22 r/w section 26 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is grieving before the Writ Court as to non-consideration of his Revocation Applications dated 25.03.2021 & 26.04.2021 respectively at Annexures-F & G wherein he has […]
Karnataka High Court held that application filed u/s. 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, seeking permission to record written statement of accused, is not maintainable before the learned Magistrate
AO committed an error in summarily rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner and also rejecting the request to condone the delay in filing the appeal without assigning proper, valid and cogent reasons and that the same deserves to be set aside.
Cancellation of GST Registration: Appeal Remedy cannot be Denied Merely Be-cause Option of Revocation was Not Opted, rules Karnataka HC
Karnataka High Court held that any person who is paid wages by the employer would become an employee under the EPF Act whether the said payment is done directly or through a contractor and accordingly EPF would be applicable.
Karnataka HC ruled that a shareholder (minority or otherwise) can’t initiate proceedings on its own for alleged offence of fraud U/s. 447 of Companies Act, 2013
Karnataka High Court held that the petitioner therein Amazon, neither seller nor supplier of the product in question could not have been hauled into the proceedings of a crime. Further, without arraigning the Company as an accused, the Directors of the company cannot be hauled into the proceedings.
Karnataka High Court held that section 7 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 mandates that once a society is registered with a particular name, another society should not be registered with undesirable names.
Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court) In the present case, admittedly, though the employer did not deposit the contribution, within the stipulated time, as contemplated by paragraph-3O of the PF Scheme or before the due date under the provisions of the PF scheme/Act, he deposited the contribution to the PF/ESI fund before […]
Merely because a client were not to succeed in the matter and favourable orders were not passed in favour of that particular client, the said client cannot make out a case that there is a fraud which has been committed by the Advocate and offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC which has been committed by an Advocate.
