In the present case there are allegations on the petitioner of having caused loss to State-Exchequer to the tune of Rs 20 crores appx. by evasion of payment of GST and he has applied for grant of interim bail, mainly on account of the prevalent conditions of spread of COVID-19 virus.
Saluja and Company Vs State of Haryana and others (Punjab & Haryana High Court) Issue- Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Mango Drink under the brand name “Slice” sold by the appellant, does not fall under Entry 100D of Schedule-C of the HVAT Act and […]
The issue under consideration is whether the Search and resultant seizure of documents and record by Director of Revenue Intelligence is justified under Customs Act, 1962?
Where the assessee transferred accumulated funds to unregistered trust then it was clear violation of Explanation to section 11(2) and clause (d) in sub-section (3) of section 11 and therefore same cannot be treated as applied for charitable purpose. Amount so transferred was thus liable to addition in the hands of the assessee-trust.
Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Private Limited Vs Union of India and others (Punjab and Haryana High Court) he note of approval of the Principal Commissioner was also perused by us, the only reason mentioned was that there was an amount outstanding of Rs. 5 crores odd against the petitioner and for the said reason, the […]
Where property acquired could not be attached prior to the commission of a scheduled offence such as criminal offence or introduction of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) unless the property obtained from the offence was held or taken outside the country.
More-so, when clearance and supply of dutiable goods is accepted and there is no denial to the fact that a purchase order existed for supply of dutiable goods, on mere assumptions the intention cannot be determined or it can be concluded that the conduct was fraudulent.
It appears that petitioner Satnarain had rendered his professional services and assistance for the purpose of incorporation of the firms. At this stage, it cannot be said that he had joined hands with Rajesh Mittal or was beneficiary of any amount other than his professinal fee.
Rajesh and another Vs State of Haryana (Punjab and Haryana High Court) The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of ASI Vinod Kumar wherein it has been alleged that on 4.6.2019 when he along with other police officials was present near grain market bridge for the purpose of patrolling, then a secret information […]
Extract of Section 82 and 83 of CGST Act, 2017 Tax to be First Charge on Property 82. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, save as otherwise provided in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, any amount payable by a taxable person or any other person […]
