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.
HC held that tax liability imposed on assessee is valid as assessee was aware of transaction alleged as ineligible on which ITC was availed
Held that the machine and two DG sets are under seal for more than two years. The impugned action of the department is wholly without jurisdiction for which the petitioner is liable to be compensated
Vaishali Varshikar Vs Vijay Mourya (Madhya Pradesh High Court) The applicant has preferred this application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.1/accused by order dated 22.2.2021 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No. 4337/2021. As per prosecution story, respondent no.1/Vijay Mourya had entered into an agreement to sell of […]
