The issue under consideration is whether the High Court was right in directing that pre-deposit was not required for entertaining an appeal before the DRAT as mandated by Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act).
Supreme Court judgment on avoidance of transactions under Insolvency Code. Key rulings on sections 43, 45, and 66. Anuj Jain vs Axis Bank. Legal insights.
In the given case, a batch of writ petitions are pending before the High Courts of Delhi, Bombay and Punjab and Haryana in which the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 read with Rule 126 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017 and other cognate provisions, is under challenge.
Kishore Jagjivandas Tanna Vs Joint Director of Income Tax (Inv.) & Anr (Supreme Court) In the facts of the present case, the respondents do not and cannot dispute that they have to refund the seized amount. Further, considerable delay and failure to make the payment constitutes and is inseparable from the cause of action as […]
SC has upheld addition under Section of Share Capital and Share premium Considering the Same as Bogus as Appellant was failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction of receiving share application money and to prove the creditworthiness.
In the instant case, indisputedly the application was filed by the appellant as a buyer of the goods(conveyor belts) from M/s. Fenner (India) Ltd. who paid the duty under protest much after a period of limitation (six months) as prescribed under the mandate of law disentitles the claim of refund to the appellant as prayed for in view of the judgment of this Court in Commissoiner of Central Excise, Mumbai II Vs. Allied Photographics India Ltd. case (supra) holding that the purchaser of the goods was not entitled to claim refund of duty made under protest by the manufacturer without complying the mandate of Section 11B of the Act, 1944.
Supreme Court directs transfer of 3 writ petition filed against the decision of NAA to Delhi High Court. Supreme Court, observing that 20 writ petition filed against order of NAA is pending before Delhi High Court, 2 before Bombay High Court and 1 before Punjab & Haryana High Court, held that in the interests of a uniform and consistent view on the law, all the writ petitions should be transferred to the High Court of Delhi, where earlier writ petitions are already pending.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs PAN India Paryatan Limited & Anr. (Supreme Court) Once an admission ticket is granted, it is not in terms of Section 3(2) of the Act but only in terms of Section 3(1)(b) of the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923. Section 3(2) of the Act has no applicability for a […]
Considering the provision of Section 65 of the IBC, it is necessary for the Adjudicating Authority in case such an allegation is raised to go into the same. In case, such an objection is raised or application is filed before the Adjudicating Authority, obviously, it has to be dealt with in accordance with law.
Search and Seizure Powers of the Authorities under the provisions of Section 67 to 71 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and their limitations. Source- High Ground Enterprises Ltd Vs UOI (Bombay High Court); Writ Petition No. 8075 of 2019; Decided on August 14, 2019 Ratio of the Judgment Section 67(5) creates a […]
