Blog Categories
Subscribe to Newsletter
Join our subscribers list to get the latest Tax Updates and Opportunities.
Knowledge Portal
Click here to explore deep insights, FAQs, and comprehensive tax guides.
Explore Now
Showing filtered results. Clear filters
Star Cement Ltd. vs Union of India – Gauhati High Court Upholds GST Budgetary Support Scheme; 100% Refund Claim Rejected Under Section 174(2)(c) of CGST Act, Following Hero Motocorp Ltd. Case
Facts of the
CaseThe lead petitioner, Star Cement Ltd., along with
several other industrial units situated in the North Eastern Region, had
approached the Gauhati High Court through a batch of writ petitions raising
...
Star Cement Ltd. vs Union of India — Gauhati High Court Rejects 100% GST Reimbursement Claim under NEIIPP 2007; Section 174(2)(c) CGST Act Bars Promissory Estoppel against Rescinded Excise Exemption
Facts of the
CaseThe petitioners were industrial units operating in
the North Eastern Region and engaged in diverse manufacturing activities,
including cement, clinker, calcined petroleum coke, plywood, steel products...
Official Liquidator vs M/s A.P. Steels Ltd. & Various Companies (In Liquidation): Telangana High Court Approves Appointment of Auditor Under Section 462 of the Companies Act, 1956 for Estate and Establishment Fund Audit
Facts of the CaseThe Official Liquidator filed Company Application No. 37 of
2022 under Section 462 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Rules
302, 309 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, seeking appointment o...
Star Cement Ltd. vs Union of India – Gauhati High Court on Section 174(2)(c) of CGST Act, 2017, NEIIPP 2007 Excise Incentives, GST Budgetary Support Scheme, Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation
Facts of the
CaseThe petitioners were industrial units operating in
Assam and other parts of the North Eastern Region. They were engaged in diverse
manufacturing activities, including cement, clinker, calcined petrole...
Vikas Kumar alias Raja & Others vs State of Uttarakhand – Bail Granted in Sections 392, 411 read with Section 34 IPC Case Due to Doubtful Midnight Identification and Absence of Evidence Regarding Source of Light
Facts of the CaseThe applicants, namely Vikas Kumar alias Raja, Sumit alias
Sumit Kumar and Titu, were in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case
Crime No. 103 of 2022, registered under Sections 392 and 411 IPC re...
Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner of State Taxes & Ors. – Calcutta High Court Allows Revision of TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for Transitional Credit; Earlier Adverse Observations Vacated in View of Supreme Court’s FILCO Directions | Section 140 of CGST/WBGST Act, 2017
Facts of the CaseHaldia Petrochemicals Ltd. preferred an intra-court appeal
against the order dated 01.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench. The
appellant raised various grounds challenging the impugned order, wh...
Sunderasan N. vs Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. – Kerala High Court Directs DRT to Decide Interim Application Before SARFAESI Auction | Section 17 of SARFAESI Act
Facts of the CaseThe petitioner, Sunderasan N., aged 73 years, was a
guarantor in respect of a loan extended by Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. to
respondents 3 to 5. Certain property belonging to the petitioner was prop...
Star Cement Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors.: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Challenge to GST Budgetary Support Scheme; Section 174(2)(c) CGST Act Bars Continuation of Rescinded Excise Incentive, but Liberty Granted for Representation on Legitimate Expectation
Facts of the
CaseA batch of writ petitions was filed by industrial
units operating in the North-Eastern Region, including Star Cement Ltd., Assam
Enterprise LLP, Assam Roofing Ltd., PDP Steels Ltd., Century Plyboards ...
Vikas Kumar alias Raja & Others vs State of Uttarakhand – Bail Granted Under Sections 392, 411 read with Section 34 IPC Where Midnight Identification Was Doubtful Due to Absence of Evidence of Source of Light
Facts of the CaseThe three bail applications arose from the same FIR and were
therefore decided by the High Court through a common order.The applicants, namely Vikas Kumar alias Raja, Sumit alias
Sumit Kumar and Titu, ...
Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise J&K, Jammu vs M/s Gaurav Agro-Chem Industries – Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994 – High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeal Concerning Refund of Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess on Parity with Earlier Batch Judgment
Facts of the CaseThe Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Jammu and
Kashmir, Jammu filed an appeal before the High Court under Section 35G of
the Central Excise Act, 1994, challenging an order of the Customs...