Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“If the Appellate Tribunal under Bihar Goods and Services Tax, 2017 is constituted and an appeal is filed there can be no further proceedings taken for recovery of the balance amounts till the appeal is disposed of.”
Bomby High Court issued notice to the Attorney General regarding challenge to the provisions of Section 15(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 being unconstitutional and violative of Articles 246A and 366(12) of the Constitution of India.
by Tarun Jain†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 76
“The opportunity of hearing, which the Officer is statutorily required to give to the person against whom an adverse decision is contemplated, is not an empty formality, and is a well-recognised principle of audi alteram partem, which has rightly been incorporated in Section 75(3) and 75(4) of the CGST Act.”
by Nirav Karia† and Vatsal Bhansali††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 15
KAAR ruled that reimbursement of expenses at actual cost which are incurred by the employee on behalf of the company is not liable to tax and reverse charge mechanism is not applicable on reimbursement of expenses on actuals to a whole-time director of the company who is also an employee of the company.
That various stakeholders are to be considered by the Resolution Professional under the relevant provisions of IBC andin accordance with law, and the same should be placed before the CoC for approval. Thus, the resolution plan was sent back for approval by the Committee of Creditors.
Authority for Advanced Ruling (Karnataka): In an application sought for advance ruling, the two-member bench of M.P. Ravi Prasad and
Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Punjab: Arun Narayan Gupta Chief Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, and Kamal Kishor Yadav, Commissioner of State
National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi: The Bench of Ashok Bhushan J., Chairperson, Rakesh Kumar Jain and Rakesh Kumar, JJ,
Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling (MahaGST): The Bench of Rajiv Magoo, Joint Commissioner of Central Tax and T.R. Ramnani, Joint Commissioner of
Kerala High Court: A.M. Badar, J., dismissed the petition challenging cancellation of CGST registration observing that the petitioner had remedy of challenging
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula, JJ., upheld the validity of Sections 132 and 69 of the
Authority for Advance Ruling, GST: A Division Bench of Dr Ravi Prasad M.P. (Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) and MashhoodUr Rehman Farooqui (Joint
Uttaranchal High Court: A Division Bench of Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ and Alok Kumar Verma, J. entertained a special appeal filed against the
Allahabad High Court: A Division Bench of Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal and Rajnish Kumar, JJ. dismissed a PIL seeking to ensure that the
Gujarat High Court: The Court heard a petition filed by two Chartered Accountants, challenging the constitutionality of the National and State/ Regional