Madras High Court held that interference with Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the ground of inequitable nature or unfair advantage not justified
HC held that the assessee should be permitted to file GST returns for the period before the cancellation of GST Registration and make payment of tax dues along with interest.
Where the parties have agreed to give only supervisory powers to a third party with respect to the disputes arising between them, and a clause which does not disclose the intention of the parties to give any adjudicatory powers to the third party, does not qualify as an ‘arbitration agreement’, as defined under Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Renatus Procon Private Ltd. Vs Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling (Madras High Court) HC held that with the enacting of the TNGST Act, 2018, the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling does not exist in the form in which it did under the TNVAT Act and hence, the application filed by the petitioner does […]
Since in matters of interception, seizure and detention, the GST Department did not recognise the concept of ‘working day’ and ‘holiday’, therefore, the order of detention was necessarily to be issued prior to the 7th day from date of detention/seizure of the conveyance/consignment in question, to validate both the interception and the SCN.
Held that while the owner or any person transporting the goods has been granted the right to seek release, the transporter has right to seek the release of conveyance alone.
HC Held that order passed under section 16 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be challenged under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Held that section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is an exception to Section 42. However, if Section 8 is also brought within the ambit of Section 42, it would defeat the sublime philosophy underlining arbitration i.e., party autonomy.
An audit objection did not satisfy the requirement of AO having an independent ‘reason to believe’ that income had escaped assessment, that too after the elapse of nearly six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, therefore, the impugned reassessment proceedings were vitiated.
Tvl. Lucky Mydeen Briyani Vs Commissioner (Madras High Court) It is seen that the petitioner during the Covid-19 pandemic period had not filed his returns and thereafter, he had not conducted any business so that he filed only nil returns. Further this case is quite similar to the cases of the petitioners in Tvl.Suguna Cutpiece […]
