Eficaz Project Limited Liability Partnership Vs Commissioner, Uttarakhand GST Commissionerate (Uttarakhand High Court) The second limb of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, even if at all a decision was required to be taken on an application submitted by the petitioner on 30th May, 2020, requesting for the cancellation of the […]
Court ordered the release of Vehicle, mango kernel oil, mahua oil, rice bran oil confiscated under section 130 of CGST Act, 2017 as mere suspicion was not sufficient to invoke the provision of the confiscation.
The claim of the petitioners with regard to the ‘flow measuring devices’ not being installed by the Commission under Section 14.1 of the Act falls in the third alternative of adopting an indirect method for assessment of water drawn by the user.
Narula Menthol Vs UOI & Ors. (Uttarakhand High Court) 1. Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court has quashed the demand intimation letters issued by the GST Dept. which directed the Petitioner to reverse the ITC amounting to Rs. 1.75 Cr on the basis that the supplier from whom the goods were purchased, has failed to deposit the […]
M/s Vimal Petrothin Private Limited. Vs Commissioner, CGST and others (Uttarakhand High Court) Petitioner’s electronic credit ledger cannot be blocked for any period in excess of one year, in view of express provision contained in Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 86(A) of C.G.S. T. Rules. Thus, he submits that petitioner’s contention to this extent is correct […]
The Dehradun Chartered Accountants Society Vs. Union of India (High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital) High Court held that Admittedly, the country continues to suffer and to reel under the COVID-19 pandemic. A large number of assesses still find it difficult to even meet their Chartered Accountants and to file their Income Tax Audit Reports […]
The issue under consideration is whether amount of service tax being statutory levy, received by assessee from its customers was to be included in calculating the aggregate amount referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 44BB of the Act?
A full bench of Uttarakhand High Court has upheld the rights of a person working on a contractual basis to have the right of getting child care leave as same as any other regular Government employee. It was agreed that the child care leave is primarily for the benefit and a matter of right of the child, as a child whose mother happens to be employed on a contractual basis with the Government will have similar needs as any other child.
Bhuwan Chandra Pandey vs Union Of India And Others (Uttarakhand High Court) More than two decades have elapsed since the Supreme Court passed a landmark judgment in case of Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 301, and formulate the famous ‘Vishakha guidelines‘, which inter alia providing guidance for the resolution of complaints through internal […]
M/s Livguard Energy Technologies (P) Ltd Vs State of Uttarakhand (Uttarakhand High Court) Uttarakhand High Court has declined to accede to petitioner’s request for release of vehicle and goods seized on merely furnishing an indemnity bond. It observed that it would be inappropriate to issue a direction contrary to provisions of Section 129 of the […]
