High Court finds that merely by depositing amount unilaterally by the petitioner-firm, in absence of any allotment letter, would not create any right to claim allotment in its favour.
Suresh Balkrishna Jajra Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction of exemption from personal appearance pursuant to summons issued to the petitioner under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2017’) issued by Respondent […]
Shree Basant Bhandar Int Udyog Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of India Cement Ltd. Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Etc., reported in AIR 1990 SC 85, the royalty is […]
Laxman Vs State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court) The provisions of Rule 2(p), Rules 58 and 75 of the Rules, 1958 clearly reflect that for a settlement arrived at between the parties by mutual negotiations, the same has to be sent to the State Government, Labour Commissioner and the conciliation officer concerned. The provisions are […]
Shweta Kedia Vs ITO (Rajasthan High Court) Issues: Whether after introduction of new provisions for reassessment of income by virtue of the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021, substituting the then existing provisions, would the substituted provisions survive and could be used for issuing notices for reassessment for the past years and Whether the […]
The petitioner has raised a pertinent grievance in this writ petition that the Form GST ITC-02A was not available on the GSTN Portal for the entire period of 30 days from the registration of its separate business verticals and even till the date of filing of the instant writ petition
Sohan Singh Rao Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) It is admitted position that the petitioner and Vinaykant Ameta were Director in M/s Miraj Products Private Limited. As per the prosecution story, they had evaded tax of Rs. 869 Crores. GST department had seized one truck which was being unloaded at their premises. The […]
The pertinent assertion of learned counsel Shri Gargieya is that the assessing authority could not have adopted the procedure provided under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reopening the assessment of the petitioner because such action was taken on the basis of facts revealed to the assessing authority during the assessment of DRA Group at Ahmedabad and the proceedings, if any, would have to be conducted under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
Anil Tambi challenges income tax assessment in Rajasthan HC, citing lack of effective hearing. Stay granted on the impugned order. Case ongoing.
G.k. Construction Company Vs Balaji Makan Samagri Stores (Rajasthan High Court) The core question whether the usage of word ‘may’ in section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides a discretion to the Court to impose or not to impose the condition of depositing minimum 20% of the fine amount, is required to be dilated […]