The question concerns the sale of used cars. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not directly deal with the sale of a motor vehicle, a movable property; but the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, does. The Motor Vehicles Act, though, deals with the procedure post-sale. Here, a motor vehicle dealer is dealing in used cars. Is its transaction a sale in the conventional sense attracting the sales tax, or a service—as an intermediary, agent, or broker—to the true owner attracting service tax? The question is simple, but the answer is not.
Mr Ganesh states that although at this stage he is not pressing for any ad interim directions, the requirement for compliance of the impugned ICDS would arise at the time filing of returns and therefore it is important that the petition be heard at an early date after completion of pleadings.
Petitioner is filing this Public Interest Litigation before this Hon’ble Court seeking recourse against the patently discriminatory and illegal treatment being meted out to the women of India by the unconstitutional and illegal imposition of a Goods and Services Tax at a high rate of 12% on sanitary napkins.
High Court has held that even if, the claim made by the assessee company does not form part of the original return or even the revised return, it could still be considered, if, the relevant material was available on record, either by the appellate authorities, (which includes both the CIT (A) and the Tribunal) by themselves, or on remand,
The balance sheet and profit and loss account of these persons discloses that these persons had sufficient funds in their accounts for investing in the shares of the Assessee. In view of these voluminous documentary evidence, only because those persons had not appeared before the Assessing Officer would not negate the case of the Assessee.
In these appeals, the appellant is Union of India, which has assailed the common judgment and order dated July 14, 2008, passed by High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh, in a batch of writ petitions. Those writ petitions were filed by some chit fund companies (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessees’) assailing the validity […]
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the State of Punjab and the State of Karnataka. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the Excise & Taxation Commissioner and the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority (ETO).
HC directs the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner to send WhatsApp message to the Chairman, Sri Anil Pratap Singh and Dr. Ram Jeet Singh Yadav, Secretary/the Election Officer on their mobile requesting them to appear before the Court today.
In this case Delhi High Court held that as of date there is no clarity on whether all legal services (not restricted to representational services) provided by legal practitioners and firms would be governed by the reverse charge mechanism.
Pr CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi (Andhra Pradesh High Court) In the present case, the assessee seems to have submitted her explanation on merits without raising a doubt as to what was the precise allegation leveled against her. However, we are more concerned with the principle involved and not just the isolated case of its application […]
