The issue under consideration is whether ‘Noticing the conveyance at a wrong destination’ without anything more can be said to be a contravention of the CGST Act?
Telangana High Court directs the bank to allow petitioner to operate bank account provisionally attached by Revenue. Provisional attachment order cannot continue after the expiry of one year. Continuation as such would be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and would be wholly without jurisdiction.
Same Deutzfahr India P Ltd Vs State of Telangana (Telangana High Court) Once it is clear that petitioner has additional place of business in the State of Telangana in Bongulur village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal and the goods were being transported to that address from its Corporate office at Ranipet, Tamil Nadu State, it cannot be said […]
Telangana High Court rules in favor of Deutzfahr India. Unjust GST and penalty collection revoked. Key insights into the case explained.
The issue under consideration is whether the Entertainment Tax will be levied on Master System Cable Operator?
CSK Realtors Limited Vs ACST (Telangana High Court) The court is of the opinion that the opinion that the 1st respondent ought to have provided a personal hearing to the petitioner, since the petitioner requested for it specifically in its objections dt.18.02.2020 filed by it to the show cause notice issued on 31.01.2020 to it […]
Thunuguntia Jagan Mohan Rao Vs DCIT (Telangana High Court) The issue under consideration is whether rejection of application of condonation of delay by the ITAT is justified in law? High Court states that, it held that there is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate and the words ‘sufficient cause’ under […]
In our opinion, this action of the respondents is also violative of Art.14,19,265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own negligence, assuming that the Demand drafts handed over by the petitioner, were not presented and encashed by the respondents.
Claim of SBI on income tax refund credited in the the defaulters’ bank account with it would get priority over the government dues including the service tax dues as per section 31-B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and sec. 26E of the SARFAESI Act,2002 w.e.f.1.9.2016.
The issue under consideration is whether without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondent has passed the order is justified in law?
