Search Results for "Assistant Commercial Tax Officer"

483 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 483 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

Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Challenging GST on Lotteries — Holds Lottery as Actionable Claim and Movable Property Under CGST Act. Levy of GST on Face Value of Lottery Tickets Without Abating Prize Money Upheld as Constitutional.

The petitioner, Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt. Ltd., an authorized agent for sale and distribution of lotteries organized by the State of Punjab, filed a ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Reserves Judgment on Challenge to Fringe Benefit Tax Provisions. Petitions question constitutional validity of Chapter XII-H of Income Tax Act, 1961 as violative of Article 14 and beyond legislative competence.

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru heard three writ petitions filed by M/s T.T.K. Prestige Ltd. and another, M/s N. Rangarao & Sons, and Karnata...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Disposes of Writ Petitions Challenging Section 140(3)(iv) of CGST Act on Transitional Credit for Pre-GST Stock. Petitioners Argue Arbitrary Cut-Off Date Leads to Double Taxation and Discrimination.

A group of manufacturers and traders, including JCB India Limited, manufacturers of excavators and loaders, filed writ petitions before the Bombay Hig...

© 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...