There is no dispute that unaccounted cash and jewellery and valuables were recovered during the course of search conducted at the premises of the petitioner and the petitioner’s associates. These assets have to be taxed in the hands of the petitioner. To assess tax on the assets seized from the petitioner, there is no necessity for extending the petitioner the benefit of cross examination of witnesses.
S.J.Suryah (a.k.a. S.Justin Selvaraj) Vs S. S. Chakravarthy (Madras High Court) Facts- According to appellant, the credit for the story, screenplay and dialogue pertaining to the film ‘Vaalee’ was given to him. The appellant argued that the Trial Court had erred in granting interim injunction, merely because the Petitioner could not produce the written agreement […]
Christian Medical College Vellore Association Vs Government of Tamil Nadu (Madras High Court) Facts- The petitioner is a society registered in terms of the Societies Registration Act managing and administering the Christian Medical College and Hospital at Vellore. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order passed by the respondent – Assistant Commissioner, […]
Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited Vs Sub Registrar (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Auction purchasers of immovable property need not pay registration fees or pay stamp duty when filing a copy of sale certificate under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908. Held: In pursuance of the sale notice under SARFAESI Act, the second respondent sold the subject […]
Czarnikow Group Limited Vs Senior Intelligence Officer (Madras High Court) Facts- The issue to be decided in the present matter is thus whether the ownership of the asset vests in the petitioner or RS, which in turn, would determine, as a consequence, whether the NCLT is the appropriate forum to adjudicate the petitioner’s prayers, including […]
P.S.Shanmuga Sundaram Vs Director Treasuries and Accounts Department (Madras High Court) Facts- The Petitioners are in the business of vending stamp papers since 1988 and holding valid licenses. The grievance of the Writ Petitioners is that since January, 2015, the Respondents are illegally demanding the Petitioners to deposit Rs.15/- for every bundle of currency, i.e., bundle […]
HC held that is not proper on the part of State Bank of India to collect cash handling charges from the stamp vendors. Accordingly, the Second and Third Respondents have failed to establish that they have the authority to collect cash handling charges from the stamp vendors, who all are depositing money through Treasury Challans for purchase of stamps.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petitions by observing that question of looking into the records, going into the facts and examining mismatch, this exercise can be done by the Appellate Authority only. Therefore, petitions shall avail alternative remedy.
CBIC was not empowered to issue circular in respect of fish meal used for making cattle / poultry / aquatic feed for clarification on GST rate as the power was to be exercised either by the Parliament by making a law as had been done in Finance Act, 2020 or by the Central Government by exercising their powers either under Section 11(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 or under Section 6(1) of the IGST Act, 2017.
Except of absence of ‘Natural Justice Principle violation, there is no other exception that arose in the case on hand, therefore, it was a fit case to relegate assessee to alternate remedy by way of statutory appeal under Section 107 of TNGST Act and CGST Act.
