HC Held that respondent-bank (SIDBI) cannot withdraw from offer of One-time Settlement which is already accepted by the petitioner/ borrower.
Create Consults Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Pradesh High Court) While generating the e-way bill, on account of a bonofide error, instead of detail of AVGOL India Pvt. Ltd. (Supplier), petitioner mentioned its own details. Meaning thereby the petitioner made attempt to demonstrate that the e-way bill which was generated by petitioner, should have […]
Robbins Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of M.P. (Madhya Pradesh High Court) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 28-9-2019, whereby the appellate authority, respondent No.3 herein, has confirmed the imposition of tax to the extent of Rs.1112134/- and penalty […]
Maharaja Cables (C/O Maxwell Logistic Pvt Ltd) Vs Commissioner (GST) State Tax Indore (M.P.) (Madhya Pradesh High Court) HC held that inadvertent human error in generating E way bill cannot lead to proceedings and penalties under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017. A tax invoice was generated which reflected the destination as well as the […]
It is trite law that whenever a litigant invokes a particular remedy available under a Statute, then the authority before whom the lis is preferred and pending, is ordinarily duty bound to decide the same on merits.
Elora Tobacco Company Limited Vs Union of India of Indirect Taxes (Madhya Pradesh High Court) The present review petition is nothing but a misuse of the process of law and wasting valuable time of the court with the intention to take one more chance instead of approaching the Supreme Court of India. Hence, the review […]
Sylph Technologies Limited Vs Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Madhya Pradesh HC) The time limit for issue of notice under section 149 is in respect of Section 148 and not for Section 148A. 1. The AO had issued issued a notice dated 28.06.2021 under pre-amended sec. 148 of the Income tax Act. 2. Later […]
Held that the delay of few hours of expiry of the validity of the tenure of e-way bill was bonafide and without establishing fraudulent intent and negligence on the part of petitioner. Penalty set aside.
Held that qualification of the arbitrator as per the arbitration agreement is pre-requisite for eligibility to be appointed as an appointed as an arbitrator. Arbitrator not satisfying the qualification is ineligible and arbitral award passed by such ineligible arbitrator cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Held that provisions of section 11(6) are judicial one and hence principal of opportunity of hearing or putting other party to notice is imperative. In absence of issuance of notice u/s 11 of A&C Act, order and proceedings gets vitiate.
