Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The High Court dismissed a review petition regarding a fraudulent Input Tax Credit (I.T.C.) claim for inward supplies. The petitioner had obtained I.T.C. based on invoices from non-existent firms. Special Investigation Branch found the firms to be bogus with no actual supply of goods. Appellate authority's decision was upheld as it considered the evidence on record. The review petition was rejected as new evidence presented could have been submitted earlier and did not refute the findings. The court found no reason to review the earlier order and dismissed the petition. The case involved Order XLVII, Rule 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.).
The High Court dismissed a review petition regarding a fraudulent Input Tax Credit (I.T.C.) claim for inward supplies. The petitioner had obtained I.T.C. based on invoices from non-existent firms. Special Investigation Branch found the firms to be bogus with no actual supply of goods. Appellate authority's decision was upheld as it considered the evidence on record. The review petition was rejected as new evidence presented could have been submitted earlier and did not refute the findings. The court found no reason to review the earlier order and dismissed the petition. The case involved Order XLVII, Rule 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.