Gujarat HC quashes recovery proceedings against a deceased director’s heir under VAT and CST laws. Detailed analysis of the court’s reasoning and legal implications.
Bombay High Court restores GST appeal for Y. M. Motors Pvt. Ltd., rejecting technical dismissal, and remands the matter for reconsideration on merits.
In these shipping bills, the Petitioner, the Petitioner’s Customs brokers inadvertently declared the Petitioner did not intend to claim the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (“MEIS”) benefit by indicating the letter “N” instead of “Y” in the relevant digital REWARD column.
NCLAT Delhi held that admitting application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 for default in payment of operational debt justified in the absence of any credible or plausible pre-existing dispute.
Supreme Court held that cognizance of the offence under section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the public servant without obtaining previous sanction under section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 untenable in law.
Delhi High Court held that keeping in abeyance refund order by exercising powers conferred u/s. 108 of the CGST Act merely on the basis of intelligence regarding wrongful availment of ITC unjustified since pre-requisite conditions for invoking section 108 not satisfied.
A Lease Deed was executed between the appellant and Skol Breweries Limited for renting of land, building, plant and machinery by the appellant to Skol. The appellant discharged service tax liability under the head “renting of immovable property” services.
Assessee has preferred the present appeal mainly contesting that CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessment order passed by AO disregarding the fact that the same was passed on non-existing entity.
The petitioner – Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., has called in question the correctness of the order u/s. 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the notice u/s. 148 of the Act and the notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act.
Supreme Court rules on whether mobile towers and prefabricated buildings qualify as “capital goods” for CENVAT credit in the telecom sector.
