The respective authorities was restrained from declaring Company as a defaulter under the SVLDR Scheme and from from taking any coercive action against the Directors, Officials of company as the Income Tax department did not release the refund due to assessee and therefore, assessee could not pay the amount determined by the Designated Committee under the SVLDRS.
Rule 8(3A) applied to cases where assessee had defaulted in payment of excise duty beyond 30 days from the due date and it did not apply to every case where in the department, during the scrutiny of returns, during audit or during investigation found any additional amount payable as duty of excise. Tribunal had given cogent reasons for its finding that assessee’s case was a case of demand under Section 11A and was not covered by Rule 8(3A) and the Revenue was not correct in denying utilization of Cenvat Credit to the assessee by applying the said sub-rule.
Akzo Nobel India Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Telangana High Court) Commercial Tax Officer shall pay costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the petitioner, which shall be recovered from the salary of the 1st respondent, and disciplinary action shall be initiated against 1st respondent for non-consideration of material filed by petitioner before […]
Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. State of Telangana (Telangana High Court) In the last one year, we have noticed at least 200 cases where the Assessing Officer under the CST Act has not issued show cause notice or if they issued notice, they have not considered the response of the assessees, and mechanically confirmed the demand […]
Where there was non-consideration of material evidence by a statutory authority, judicial review by the High Court in exercise of it’s power under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is permissible, and existence of alternative remedy is not a bar for exercise of such power.
Telangana High Court held that the action of the respondents in conducting panchanama dt.28.08.2019 and seizing cash of Rs.5.00 crores from Vipul Kumar Patel, employee of the petitioner in W.P.No.23023 of 2019, and retaining it till date, is illegal and ultra vires the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also violative of Art.14
Rajesh Agrarwal Vs Reserve Bank of India (Telangana High Court) Aggrieved by the non-inclusion of principles of natural justice in the Master Directions on Fraud (‘the Master Circular’, for short), dated 01.07.2016, issued under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 by the Reserve Bank of India, aggrieved by the decision of the Joint […]
Neeraj Karande Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Telangana High Court) In view of the above rival submissions, the allegations against the petitioner are that he has collected and issued invoices or bills without actual supply of goods in violation of the provisions of the CGST Act and the rules made thereunder leading to wrongful […]
Ramgopal Varma and Another Vs Perumalla Amrutha (Telangana High Court) No doubt a person undoubtedly has a right to privacy in relation to her family, marriage, procreation, motherhood and child-bearing and none can publish anything concerned with these matters without his/her consent. Yet, there is an exception to the said rule i.e., that any publication […]
Agarwal Foundries Private Limited Rama Towers Vs Union of India (Telangana High Court) No provision of any law is cited before us by the respondents to say that they are entitled to use physical violence against persons they suspect of being guilty of tax evasion while discharging their duties under the CGST Act, 2017. Merely […]
