Search Results for "deposit under protest"

297 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 297 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Orders Refund of Rs.56 Crore Service Tax Deposit Retained Without Authority of Law. Petitioner Bank's deposit made under protest to buy peace on interchange income cannot be retained without show cause notice or adjudication order.

The petitioner, The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the retent...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petitions Challenging GST Detention Orders for Lack of Proper Adjudication. Principles of Natural Justice Violated as Show Cause Notices Were Issued Without Considering Petitioner's Reply.

The petitioner, M/s. Vinod Metal and M/s. Vinod Steel, proprietorship and HUF concerns of Vinodkumar Velraj Mehta, filed multiple writ petitions under...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging SVLDRS-3 Demand for Interest Component Under Sabka Vishwas Scheme. Interest paid under protest prior to show cause notice is part of tax dues under Section 124(2) of Finance Act, 2019.

The Petitioner, National Centre for the Performing Arts, a public trust registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and engaged in providin...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay Dismisses Section 34 Petition Challenging Arbitral Award in Favor of Government of Israel in Commercial Lease Dispute. Arbitrator's Rejection of Set-Off and Counter-Claim as Time-Barred Upheld as Not Patently Illegal.

The petitioner, Earnest Business Services Private Limited, filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arbitral Award in Security Deposit Dispute. Court upholds arbitrator's finding that the amount was a refundable security deposit and not a loan, rejecting challenge under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The petitioners, A. S. Patel Trust and its trustees, challenged an arbitral award dated 12 October 2018 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Concil...