Agrawal Petrolium Co. Vs PCIT (Madhya Pradesh High Court) The main grievance put forth is that when petitioner received a notice under Section 148A(b) of Income Tax Act, the petitioner filed a reply on 15.03.2022 but the same was not considered by the respondent. Learned counsel for the parties by placing reliance on para-3 and […]
Powers under Section 9 of the A& C Act cannot be invoked by the competent Court prior to the termination of the conciliation proceedings under the MSMED Act.
Application is liable to be filed under section 97 for obtaining the advance ruling in advance not during the pendency of any issue before the authority.
Dive into the legal battle of Uwas Recyclers LLP vs. Customs Authority. The case revolves around the classification of metal waste, exploring Customs Act sections and the implications.
HC held that, orders denying refund claim to the assessee for accumulated credit of Compensation Cess, where the reason of claim being time barred is absent but certain other reasons have been assigned that are sufficient to enable the assessee to know the cause for rejection of the claim for refund cannot be categorized to be non-speaking. Further, relegated the matter for avail the alternate remedy of appeal
Court held that a party cannot directly seek the appointment of the arbitrator when the agreement provides for pre-arbitration reference to some authority.
Rajdhani Security Force Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Section 107 (1) of GST Act provides that an appeal can be preferred within a period of three (3) months from the date of the order, while Section 107 (4) of the Act stipulates that the Appellate Authority, if satisfied that the […]
The entire controversy revolves around the question as to whether the assessee has been able to provide explanation for difference of stock between the stock submitted to the bank as on 28/3/2005 and the stock indicated in the audit report for the period ending 31/03/2005 relating to raw material, stock-in-process and finished goods.
Technosteel Infraprojects Pvt. Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Pradesh High Court) A tax invoice was generated which reflected the destination as well as the registration number of the vehicle which has been brought on record as Annexure P/3. Thereafter, the petitioner generated E-way bill which is required to be carried along with the […]
Adroit Industries (India) Ltd. Vs Union of India (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Facts of the case are not in dispute to the effect that the petitioner during the relevant period i.e. 2015-20 was entitled to avail the benefit of MEIS but could not avail of such benefit as the concerned staff did not declare the […]
