Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 8.09.2010 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for assessment year 2006-07.2. Vide application dated 17.05.2021 the appellant sought

The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court ("HC") in Bangalore Turf Club Limited and ors. v. Union of India [WP No. 11168/2018 and WP No. 11167/2018 decided on June 02, 2021] held that Goods and Service Tax ("GST") cannot be levied on the entire bet amount rec

The controversy and the issues involved in the present petition are quite similar to those arising in a batch of petitions which have been heard along with the present petition. However, since the facts of the present case are slightly distinct, it

By way of the present petition, a writ of mandamus is sought against the Respondent to allow the Petitioner to carry forward the transitional input tax credit to the tune of Rs. 60,15,498/- by filing form GST TRAN-1 either online or manually.

The common thread in this present batch of petitions is that they pertain to transition of CENVAT credit from the erstwhile indirect tax regime to the present Goods and Services Tax (‘GST’) system by virtue of a right specifically conferred on the ta

The present petition was heard on 21st December, 2020 along with other batch matters relating to difficulties faced by taxpayers in filing form GST TRAN-1 (hereinafter “TRAN-1 Form”). However, considering that the issue involved in the present petiti

The prayer made in the captioned application is to grant exemption from filing requisite court-fee and sworn/notarised/affirmed affidavit. The captioned application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to place on record the duly sworn/n

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to forthwith grant and sanction interest on the refund amount after expiry of three months from the respective dates of applicatio

Heard Mr. Vikram Nankani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajshekhar Govilkar, learned counsel for the respondents.

Subject matter and reliefs sought for in all the writ petitions being identical, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.