In the present case, he had been paid professional fee for uploading of the refund of Input Tax Credit. The petitioner and his co-accused Sunil Mahalawat were colleagues, as such the UDIN was borrowed by the petitioner from him for uploading and issuance of the CA certificate.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that as there is no adverse effect on the economic interest of India, recourse couldnt be taken for coercive process like issuance of Look Out Circular (LOC) interfering with the constitutional right to travel abroad.
It is by now well settled that the validity and legality of an order has to be tested in terms of reasons assigned in the order itself. The distinction that is now sought to be drawn has been taken only at the stage of filing a reply and counter to the writ petition.
Nitin Goyal Vs State of Haryana (Punjab and Haryana High Court) The allegations against the petitioner are of cheating the State by claiming input credit through fake invoices by using fake addresses of the firms created through different proprietors and defrauded the State to the extent of more than Rs. One crore. A perusal of […]
In cheque Bounce case arraigning of the sole proprietary concern rather was a condition precedent for making the complaint well constituted, as it becomes the principal offender, and, with its remaining un-impleaded, as such, the absence of its impleadment cannot make the instant complaint to be well constituted, nor, any valid prosecution can in its absence, be drawn, even against the accused petitioner, who can be assigned only a vicarious liability alongwith it.
Punjab & Haryana High Court in GST fraud case granted the bail as no serious apprehension has been expressed by the prosecution of the petitioners being flight risks, or that they would tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses
Challenge in writ petition before Punjab and Haryana High Court was to Notice under section 148 and subsequent order under section 148-A(d) as well as CBDT Instructions No.1 of 2022 dated 11.05.2022.
Held that impugned show cause notice cannot sustain as there has been an inordinate delay in adjudication of the same.
Held that insurance company is not required to deduct TDS on interest on compensation till 01.06.2015. However, after 01.06.2015, TDS is deductible if interest exceeds Rs. 50,000 per claimant per financial year.
Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, as per which, a presumption is raised in favour of the complainant that the notice had, in fact, been delivered.
