Search Results for "Section 74A"

11 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 11 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Gujarat High Court Quashes GST Demand Order for Violation of Natural Justice — Personal Hearing Not Granted Despite Reminders Under Section 75(5) of GST Act. Failure to Provide Personal Hearing Before Confirming ITC Reversal Demand Renders Order Invalid; Matter Remanded for Fresh Adjudication.

The petitioner, Aarti Enterprise through Savitaben Brindavan Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging a system-based notice in Form DRC-01A dated 09...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Labour Court Orders in Industrial Dispute — Petitioner Company Failed to Show Perversity or Jurisdictional Error in Awards Granting Relief to Workmen.

The petitioner, Electropneumatics And Hydraulics India Pvt. Ltd., filed two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging separate ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Adjudicates TDS Obligations of Turf Clubs on Stake Money Payments to Horse Owners under Income Tax Act. Interpretation of Section 194B and CBDT Circulars Central to Dispute over Characterization of Stake Money as Winnings.

The case involved writ petitions filed by Bangalore Turf Club Limited, Mysore Race Club Limited, Karnataka Race Horse Owners Association, and an indiv...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

KAHC010028192013_1

...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Partly Allows Landlords' Petition Against MRT Order Remanding Purchase Price Fixation in Tenancy Dispute. MRT Exceeded Revisional Jurisdiction by Ordering De Novo Fixation Without Setting Aside ALT's Determination.

The petitioners, landlords of agricultural lands, challenged an order dated 27 April 1992 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) in a revisi...

© 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...