Search Results for "Entry Tax"

926 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 926 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court Quashes GST Appellate Order Against Indian Oil Corporation for Violation of Natural Justice — Pre-deposit Requirement Set Aside. Failure to Provide Personal Hearing and Reasoned Order Renders Appellate Order Unsustainable Under Section 107(11) of CGST Act, 2017.

The petitioner, M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., a public sector undertaking engaged in storage and supply of petroleum products, filed a writ petitio...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petitions Challenging Levy of Entry Tax on Natural Gas Under Maharashtra Entry Tax Act, 2002 — Holds That Natural Gas Is Not 'Goods' for Entry Tax Purposes When Supplied Through Pipelines

The judgment concerns four writ petitions filed by companies (Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., Smartchem Technologies Ltd., Emp...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Karnataka High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Service Tax on Renting of Hotels and Restaurants. Sub-clauses (ZZZZV) and (ZZZZW) of Section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994 as amended by Finance Act, 2011 held to be within legislative competence of Parliament.

The case involves three writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Karnataka High Court. The petitioners ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Retrospective Amendment to Sales Tax Incentive Scheme. Retrospective Operation of Section 41B of Bombay Sales Tax Act and Rule 31AA Upheld as Valid and Not Violative of Vested Rights.

The petitioners, M/s. Prasad Power Control Pvt. Limited and its director, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 41B of the Bombay Sales Ta...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Time Limit for Availing Input Tax Credit Under Section 16(4) of CGST Act. The court held that the time limit is mandatory and not directory, and retrospective amendments are valid.

The Bombay High Court, in a batch of writ petitions, addressed the constitutional validity and interpretation of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods an...