Dhariwal Products Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the action of the respondent GST Department and its officials in conducting search and seizure of the petitioner’s premises, coercing the petitioner to deposit a huge sum of Rs.11.5 crores during the course of […]
Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) It appears quite undisputable that the petitioner had availed the facility of importing goods under advance licences without payment of duty. In some cases such advance licence were invalidated in order to procure raw material duty free from local manufacturers. Raw materials so procured were […]
CIT Vs Ramdoot Prasad Sewa Samiti (Rajasthan High Court) brief facts are that respondent-assessee is a trust registered under Section 12AA of the Act and had claimed exemption under the Act for assessment year 2012-13. The return filed by the assessee-trust was taken under scrutiny by the assessing officer. During such assessment the assessing officer […]
Whether Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in law in holding that respondent cannot be hold responsible for amount not deposited by selling dealer and allowed benefit of Input Tax Credit which ultimately will amount to double jeopardy to State as selling dealer has not deposited tax whereas subsequent dealer has claimed benefit of Input Tax Credit.
Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had created the fake seven firms and claimed input tax credit of Rs.16,99,89,923 (Sixteen Crores Ninety Nine lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Three).
As per clause (b) of Section 130-E of the Act, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal which relates among other things to the determination of any question having relation to rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment.
Regulation 72(1) provides that an officer or employee shall be eligible for payment of gratuity either as per the provisions of the Act of 1972 or as per Sub-regulation (2) whichever is higher. Thus, it is beyond doubt that an employee must receive gratuity whichever is more beneficial either under the Act of 1972 or under the Regulations framed by the bank. However, this is not the same thing as to suggest that an employee can choose computation of gratuity under one statute and seek benefits of other provisions under another statute. As we have noticed, the scheme of gratuity under the Act of 1972 and under the regulations framed by the bank are different.
High Court has held that the service tax paid on re-insurance would be allowable as input service under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Sudesh Taneja Vs ITO (Rajasthan High Court) In the writ petitions the petitioners have challenged respective notices issued by the Assessing Officers under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) for reopening assessments for various assessment years. All these notices have been issued after 01.04.2021 and pertain to relevant period […]
Rajasthan High Court upheld the provisions w.r.t claiming of refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) and asked the department to pass final order after taking into account the reply of the assessee.
