Access significant and up-to-date high court judgments for legal insights and precedent. Stay informed about the latest legal decisions and their impact on various areas of law.
Corporate Law : Bombay HC criticizes Pune Police for copying FIR from private complaint, highlighting legal implications and citizen harassment is...
Corporate Law : Allahabad HC asserts that Section 498A IPC is often misused against entire families to exert pressure. Employment prospects should...
Corporate Law : The Orissa High Court ruled that voter ID alone is not reliable for determining age in insurance claims, directing LIC to reassess...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court recent judgment highlights the alarming misuse of the POCSO Act, where cases are filed due to family objections t...
Corporate Law : J&K&L High Court quashes money laundering case against Farooq Abdullah, citing absence of a scheduled offence under the Prevention...
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Goods and Services Tax : HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA: Ramesh Kumar Patodia v. Citi Bank [WPO NO. 547 OF 2019 JUNE 24, 2022 ] Facts: ♦ Petitioner is a holder ...
Goods and Services Tax : CGST, Gurugram (Anti Evasion) Vs Gaurav Dhir (Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Courts, Gurugram) U/s 132(1)) r/w 132(1)(b)(C)(e...
Corporate Law : In order to dispense with the physical signatures on the daily orders (which are not important/final orders and judgments) of the ...
Custom Duty : Delhi High Court admits petition questioning Validity of provisions in Finance Act 2022 which overruled landmark Judgment of Supr...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court inTvl. Arudra Engineering Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) ruled that C-Forms cannot be deemed non...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court judgment on Hajee S M Ahamed and Company vs Deputy State Tax Officer, remanding ₹25,000 GST demand and ₹1.36...
Goods and Services Tax : Calcutta HC reinstates GST appeal for Rahul Bansal, ruling technical glitches can't negate statutory rights to challenge orders un...
Excise Duty : Calcutta HC remands the CGST appeal to the Tribunal for reconsideration after the Supreme Court's stay of the Gujarat High Court r...
Income Tax : Calcutta High Court rules deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e) taxable only in shareholders' hands, upholding ITAT's decision. ...
Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court mandates new video conferencing protocols to enhance transparency and accessibility in court proceedings. Rea...
Income Tax : Income Tax Department Issues Instructions for Assessing Officers after Adverse Observations of Hon. Allahabad High Court in in Civ...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court has exempted the Lawyers from wearing Gowns practicing in the High Court with effect from March 2, 2022 till furt...
Corporate Law : Till further orders, all documents/ not summons/Daks through physical mode be dispensed with, except where there, is a specific or...
Income Tax : Hon’ble Judges to hear the matters physically at the Principal Seat at Bombay, on experimental basis with effect from 1st Decemb...
Myres Tyre Supply (India) Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court) In addition to writ with High Court appellant had also moved an application for refund of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed under the TNVAT Act and this application was without prejudice to their rights under section 140(3) of the TNGST Act. The […]
Chandimata Iron Vs State of Tripura (Tripura High Court) Since the order under challenge in this petition is appealable, we permit the petitioner to pursue such appeal for which, we are informed limitation period has yet not expired. However, considering the facts of the case, the goods of the petitioner which are in the nature […]
The issue under consideration is that, when two views are possible and A.O. adopt one of the view and passed his order accordingly. But that view is not acceptable by PCIT, in such case can PCIT adopt its one of the other views and call the order of A.O. the erroneous?
This Court does not find any substance in the arguments of the petitioner, when they say that the investigation and the proceedings now initiated is one, which hit by Section 6(2)(1)(b) of the CGST Act of 2017. What has also to be appreciated is the fact that there is a clear distinction between a proceeding drawn for the demand of tax evaded by the petitioner-establishment and the investigation be conducted by the Department of the DG, GST Intelligence Wings in respect of an offence committed by an establishment by way of using bogus and fake invoices and illegally availing ITCs, which the petitioner-establishment otherwise was ineligible.
It appears that petitioner Satnarain had rendered his professional services and assistance for the purpose of incorporation of the firms. At this stage, it cannot be said that he had joined hands with Rajesh Mittal or was beneficiary of any amount other than his professinal fee.
Lakhan Singh Chauhan and Company Vs Union of India and others (Madhya Pradesh HC) In the impugned order, there is no consideration to the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal regarding non-communication of the order to the petitioner and start of period of limitation from the date of communication or knowledge of the order. […]
Rajesh and another Vs State of Haryana (Punjab and Haryana High Court) The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of ASI Vinod Kumar wherein it has been alleged that on 4.6.2019 when he along with other police officials was present near grain market bridge for the purpose of patrolling, then a secret information […]
In the instant case, the allegations are in respect of getting bogus firms registered under the GST Code and of preparing bogus invoices for the purpose of evading tax.
The subject matter of challenge in the instant writ proceeding is challenging the seizure as well as praying for release of the seized goods. A counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State reveals, inter alia, as follows :-
It has come on record that the applicant’s firm was found indulging in running business from bogus address and a huge transaction is shown to have been done without there is any such big transaction reflected from the account of the firm.
