Punjab and Haryana High Court held that if a special provision has been made qua a particular subject (here Value Added Tax), the said subject is excluded from the general provisions (here, Indian Penal Code). Since the provisions of the VAT Act do not provide for the registration of the FIR and the said Act is a Code in itself, the provisions of the IPC also cannot be invoked.
In the present case service tax was not applicable and that no demand of service tax has ever been raised by concerned department. Consequently, retention of aforesaid security money deposited by petitioner is per se not justified.
HC held that there is no change in legal position i.e. scope and ambit of intermediary services under service tax regime vis-a-vis the GST regime hence Master Services Sub-contracting agreement which continues to operate since 2013 cannot be treated differently at different period.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that bail granted as co-morbodities of the petitioner falls in the exception of being sick as carved out in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Neo Built through its proprietor Vs ETO-cum-Proper Officer and another (Punjab and Haryana High Court) For the purpose of calculating the period of thirty days for filing application for revocation of cancellation of registration under sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Act and where cancellation order was passed upto 12.06.2020, the later of the […]
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.
