Advanced Search Options
Showing 1 to 20 of 292 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2021 (1) TMI 1104 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - no notice of personal hearing provided - HELD THAT:- A reply has been filed to the show cause notice as early as on 23.08.2010 and thereafter, no further proceedings have been initiated by the respondent. The petitioner has also not bothered to appear before the respondents or seek a clarification with regard to what has transpired thereafter. Even without approaching the respondent by way of a representation or a letter seeking clarity in the matter, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a certiorari of the show cause notice, which is more than a decade old. Moreover, there appears to be absolutely no trigger for the present Writ Petition and no notice of personal hearing or any other communication has been received after the show cause notice issued in August, 2010 - there is no cause of action at this juncture to justify this Writ Petition - Petition dismissed.
- 2021 (1) TMI 1101 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Levy of VAT - goods provided by a DTH provider to its customer - petitioner contends that for providing such equipments no charge is collected from the subscriber and petitioner continues to be the owner of the goods and thus the State authorities cannot collect value added tax on such equipments - HELD THAT:- The present petition are squarely covered by the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD. VERSUS STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS, TATA SKY LTD. VERSUS STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS [2015 (11) TMI 46 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT]. The question involved in the said petition was with respect to inviting value added tax on the goods provided by a DTH provider to its customer so that the customer could enjoy such service. It is also a case where concededly there was no sale of goods - Nevertheless the High Court referr....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 1096 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the GST Act, 2017 - Vires of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A respectively of the Constitution - HELD THAT:- Let Notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 25th March 2021. The respondents shall be served directly through Email. In the meantime, one set of the entire paper book be furnished to Mr. Devang Vyas, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, who would be appearing for the respondents.
- 2021 (1) TMI 1095 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Valuation - Independent transaction of purchase of land and construction contract for construction of bungalow on such land - Validity of Entry No.3(if) of the Notification No.11/217 -Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 217 read with Para-2 of the said notification - HELD THAT:- The writ applicant has been able to make out a strong prima facie case to have an interim order in his favour in terms of para-27(F) of the writ application. We, accordingly, grant such relief. We permit the writ applicant to deposit the amount of tax as raised under the invoice without prejudice to his rights and contentions as raised in this writ application. Mr. Sheth, the advocate on record, shall furnish one set of the entire paper-book to Mr. Devang Vyas, the learned Addl. Solicitor General of India at the earliest so that he can obtain necessary instructions in the matter by the next date of hearing.
- 2021 (1) TMI 1094 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Profiteering - benefit of input tax credit to its customers/homebuyers not passed on - Section 171 of the CGST Act and Chapter XV of the CGST Rules (more particularly, Rules 126, 127 & 133 of the CGST Rules) - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. Mr. Farman Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 accept notice. Counter affidavits be filed within a period of two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. List along with other batch petitions on 15th February, 2021.
- 2021 (1) TMI 1093 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Vires of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 and other provisions under Chapter XV of the Act - composition of the Respondent No. 2/National Anti-Profiteering Authority under Rule 122 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Although in the order passed in NESTLE INDIA LTD. & ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2020 (2) TMI 671 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the court has apparently not interdicted the suo moto investigation, but at the same time we notice that this Court has given protection to nearly all the Petitioners, faced with similar circumstances, i.e., wherever the authority has directed investigation in relation to products/services which were beyond the scope of original investigation. Therefore, we see no reason to deny the same relief to the Petitioner herein. Petitioner is therefore entitled to the interim protection, pending dispos....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 1092 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vires of Sections 69 and 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Section 135 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Sections 16 (2) (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and U.P. Goods and Services Ta Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Since, vires of provision of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 have been challenged, let issue notices be issued to Attorney General of India and the Advocate General of State of U.P. Sri Manish Kumar Niranjan, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.2 pray for and are granted four weeks' time to file their respective counter affidavits. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall have one week therea....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 1091 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seizure of Goods - allegation of reuse of E-way bills - Since the e-way bills were not cancelled and the transportation of the goods commenced four days thereafter, it has been inferred that the said e-way bills had been reused - HELD THAT:- Rule 138(9) of the Rules does not prescribe that the dealer must necessarily cancel the e-way bill if no transportation of the goods is made within 24 hours of its generation. It certainly does not provide any consequence that may follow if such cancellation does not take place. On the contrary, the Rule permits a dealer to cancel the e-way bill only if the transportation does not take place and the dealer choses to cancel such e-way bill within 24 hours of its generation. Even if the dealer does not cancel the e-way bill within 24 hours of its generation, it would remain a matter of inquiry to determ....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 1090 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Condone delay in fling the application for exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) - extension of the limitation period - HELD THAT:- Neither of the two i.e. the order dated 27.09.2019 and the Circular dated 03.11.2020 deal with an application for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the act in Form No.56D which has a definite time line i.e., upto 30th September of the relevant assessment year, in the instant case 30th September 2019. We do not find any provision for extending the time limit beyond 30.09.2019 though such a power is available with the CBDT. There is no provision for extension of the limitation period or for condonation of delay in fling the application for grant of exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the act by the CIT (Exemption) To that extent respondent No.1 was justified in rejecting the application for the assessment year 2019....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 1089 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
RTI Application seeking information against Private Parties - Allegation of tax evasion - Public interest - Single Judge held that Petitioner is not entitled to get the information in the form of his Income Tax Returns, Status of Agriculturists, disclosure as Business Income or not etc. and from the concerned Authorities of the Income Tax Department under provisions of the RTI Act with respect to private Respondent with whom the present Petitioner has some litigation with regard to the land in question, which the Petitioner claims to have purchased and was again sold by the same Seller in favour of private Respondents also who claimed to be the Agriculturists under a Will - HELD THAT:- We are satisfied that the order of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference in the present intraCourt appeal and the same being with....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 1088 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refunds claim along with interest accrued thereon u/s 244A - what remedies are available under the Act in respect of an error committed by the Tax Authority in calculating the refund? - statutory alternate remedy - HELD THAT:- Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any specific provision and submits that these remedies lie before this Court. We would not like to be drawn into the factual controversy. Particularly, since there is a dispute regarding the computation of refund amount, a mandamus, as prayed for, cannot be issued to the respondents. In our view the Income tax Act not only creates rights and liabilities, but also provides for a complete machinery for enforcing the same, as well as a mechanism to challenge the orders of the Revenue authorities. Thus, the Petitioner must only avail the remedy as provided for by....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 1087 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(a)(i) - AO disallowed the claims of the assessee on the ground that the assessees had lent monies to the members who were undertaking non-agricultural/ non-farm activities and had received the interest on par with commercial banks - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2016 (8) TMI 560 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] CIT (Appeal) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has clearly held that the assessees are not co-operative bank and that their activities in the nature of accepting deposits, advancing loans etc., carried on by the assessees are confined to its members only and that too in a particular geographical area. Therefore, the respondent Societies are eligible for deduction under Section 80P (2) (a) (i) of the Act.. The contention of the appellants that the members of the assessee societies are not entitled to receive any....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 1081 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 80IA - Treatment to carbon credit receipt - revenue or capital receipts - income from generation of electricity and the carbon credit earned by the assessee are totally separate and the source of the income is also separate - assessee is not entitled for deduction in respect of the carbon credit - HELD THAT:- Assessee while preferring appeal before the CIT(A), has specifically raised a contention that the receipts from sale of carbon credit is a capital receipt and cannot be included in the taxable income. Though this ground raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) has been recorded in the order, the CIT(A) did not take a decision on the same. Similar ground was raised by the assessee before the Tribunal, which was not considered by the Tribunal, though the Tribunal refers to all the decisions relied on by the assessee, but ....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 1056 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Concessional benefit of tax - purchase of High Speed Diesel from suppliers in other States - difficulty in obtaining C-Form - respondent fairly submits that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Dhandapani Cement Private Limited Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, [2019 (2) TMI 1850 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein on identical issue it was held that Petitioner in these Writ Petitions has stated on affidavit that it is unable to download the ‘C’ forms from the websites as the same stand blocked from use. Upon enquiry with the Assessing Authorities, they have been informed that the benefit of the decision in M/S. THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CT) [2018 (10) TMI 1529 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] Ltd can be exten....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 1054 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of application - prosecution to draw second sample from the recovered case property - Smuggling - Heroin - HELD THAT:- The impugned order cannot be sustained and is bound to be set aside, since the case in hand is squarely covered by the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in Amarjit Singh's case [2011 (3) TMI 1805 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], this eventuality has been dealt with holding that re-drawing of sample cannot be got done by the prosecution simply because it is not satisfied by the report received with regard to the first sample sent to the FSL. Petition allowed.
- 2021 (1) TMI 1053 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Smuggling - contraband narcotics - compliance of Section 50 of the Act or not? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the said contraband narcotic was recovered from personal search of appellant Munnan, concealed in his belly region below kurta and lunghi, worn by him. In addition to above, consent memo (Ex.Ka.4) was prepared in presence of police party and appellant Munnan. According to prosecution, the said recovery was made by S.I. Narendra Singh Yadav (PW-4) in presence of S.I. Kripa Shankar Dixit, S.I. Mukhram Yadav (PW-3), Constable 194 Chandrika Prasad and Constable Kamlesh Mishra (PW-2) who have put their signatures on recovery memo (Ex.Ka.5) but the consent memo (Ex.Ka.4), prepared by S.I. Kripa Shankar Dixit does not show the signature either of S.I. Mukhram Yadav (PW-3) or Const. Chandrika Prasad or Const. Kamlesh Mishra (PW-2). Mukhram Yad....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 1052 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Profiteering - Kiwi Shoe Polish Black - 40 gm PSP - vires of Section 171 of the CGST Act read with Rule 126 of the CGST Rules - HELD THAT:- Mr.Ravi Prakash, learned standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Revenue. He prays for and is permitted to file a counter-affidavit within two weeks. Rejoinder-affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. List on 04th January, 2021 along with connected matters.
- 2021 (1) TMI 1051 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Service of notice - Validity of assessment order - recovery of arrears of tax and penalty - also, order of assessment dated 10.09.2015, which was impugned in the writ petition, has been returned with a postal endorsement “returned” - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the fact that the order of assessment was refused to be received, the learned Writ Court rightly held that the service of the notice was complete. Since the appellant had insisted that the business was not functioning, the Writ Court had directed the Revenue to make a visit to the business premises and file a report. Pursuant to such direction, the Assessing Officer, viz., the first respondent had made a visit to the business premises and filed a report through e-mail dated 07.10.2020, annexing photographs, which showed that the entity was functioning and carrying on bus....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 1050 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of Penalty - levy on the basis of the retracted statement without any independent corroborative - acquitting the appellant from all charges, valid or not - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the honourable Tribunal was right in sustaining the penalty on the appellant and the co-accused were discharged from all charges and in the adjudication proceedings? - HELD THAT:- Upon examination of the evidence, the Adjudicating Authority found that the confessional statement is true. Furthermore, the appellant could not establish that the statement recorded from him on 11.03.1998 was obtained by threat, duress or promise. The burden of proof to show that the statement was recorded under threat, duress was on the appellant, which he had failed to discharge. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority, having done a proper exerc....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 1049 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Disallowance of interest expenses u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(ii) - Tribunal deleted addition - HELD THAT:- Findings recorded is that, the interest income received during the year was more than interest paid by the assessee for all three assessment years. The Tribunal has concurred with the CIT(A) on the question of deletion of disallowance for interest under Rule 8(2)(ii) of the Rules. This appeal stands dismissed so far as the first question of law as proposed by the Revenue is concerned.