A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Notice

Message: Trying to get property 'blog_child_category_id' of non-object

Filename: controllers/Frontend.php

Line Number: 444

Backtrace:

File: /home/edatabook/public_html/application/controllers/Frontend.php
Line: 444
Function: _error_handler

File: /home/edatabook/public_html/index.php
Line: 315
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Notice

Message: Trying to get property 'blog_child_category_subcategory_id' of non-object

Filename: controllers/Frontend.php

Line Number: 446

Backtrace:

File: /home/edatabook/public_html/application/controllers/Frontend.php
Line: 446
Function: _error_handler

File: /home/edatabook/public_html/index.php
Line: 315
Function: require_once

questions Online: Edatabook
MADRAS HIGH COURT [J.M. Traders Represented by Its Proprietor, K. Jamal Mohideen Vs The Deputy Commissioner (St), the Commercial Tax Officer, Chennai]

In the case at hand, apart from mentioning the name of the supplier in the electronic credit ledger, no reasons were provided. This writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to take necessary action to remove the block on the ITC in the electronic credit ledger pertaining to the assessee. It is, however, open to the respondents to initiate de novo action under Rule 86A by complying with the terms thereof.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT [V.S. Products Rep by Prop., Manoj Kumar Srivastava . Vs Additional Commissioner (Appeals) and Anr]

1. Heard Mr. Rivankar the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, Ms. Pereira, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Arolkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No. 3.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer & Ors. Vijay Metal .....Respondent]

SC is not inclined to interfere. Special Leave Petition is accordingly, dismissed.

TELANGANA-AAR [Navyaa Nuchu .....Appellant Hon`ble Justice S.V. Kasi Visweswara Rao and Sahil Inamdar]

The applicant is providing renting of buildings to GHMC and in municipalities and there is no direct relation between the services provided by the applicant and the functions discharged by the GHMC under Article 243W read with schedule 12 to the Constitution of India. Therefore these services do not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 12/2017 and therefore remains taxable.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [KR Pulp Papers Ltd. Vs Goods and Services Tax Council and 4 Others]

Petitioner submitted that the notification No.56 of 2023 dated 28th December, 2023, has been issued only under the Central GST Act, 2017, that too, without prior approval of the GST council. In any case, no parallel notification has been issued under the UP GST Act, 2017. Matter requires consideration.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [Kapil Transport Company Through Its Proprietor Kakkumal Vs State of U.P. Through Secretary Institutional Finance, U.P]

The petitioner could not justify the reasons for non-production of the invoice and the e-way bill leading to a presumption that there was an intention to evade tax. Further, the petitioner was not able to bring any evidence to rebut the said presumption of evasion of tax. Therefore, this court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [Visible Alpha Solutions India Private Limited Vs Commissioner, CGST Appeals, Noida and Another]

1. Heard Sri Mohit Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Amit Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

MADRAS HIGH COURT [Tamil Nadu Kerosene Dealers Association, Represented by Its President S. Kuppuswamy Vs The Principal Secretary to Government, The Additional Chief Secretary/commissioner, Chennai]

The writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the petitioners request in the representation made on 28.01.2019 to grant exemption from the provisions of Section 51 of the SGST/CGST Acts to levy of TDS at 2% be taken up with the GST Council for wholesale kerosene suppliers, who purchase PDS kerosene from oil companies and supply the same to fair price shops run by the State Government after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

MADRAS HIGH COURT [Renault Nissan Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Its Deputy General Manager, Authorised Signatory, K. Srinivasa Rao Vs Renault Nissan Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., K. Srinivasa Rao ]

The petitioner has assailed the order on the ground that it travels beyond the scope of revision proceedings under Section 108 of the TNGST Act and that no findings were recorded with regard to this objection in the impugned order. The petitioner also contended that interest was not leviable under Section 50(3) and that penalty should not be levied in the facts and circumstances. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, to the petitioner and thereafter issue a speaking order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

MADRAS HIGH COURT [R.K. Tools, Represented By Its Proprietor Alagarsamy Rathinakumar Vs The Assistant Commissioner]

The petitioner is directed to file her returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, together with tax dues along with interest thereon and the fee fixed for belated filing of returns within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on payment of tax, penalty and uploading of returns, the registration shall stand revived forthwith. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

DELHI HIGH COURT [ K.M. Food Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Mukesh Kapoor and Mukesh Kapoor and Others Vs The Director General DGGI Headquarters, New Delhi ]

This court do not find any justification for the resumption of the cash which was converted into fixed deposit with Auto Renewal Option and its continued retention by the respondents in the search carried out by the Officers of the respondents on 04.10.2021. Petitions are therefore allowed with directions to the respondents to forthwith remit the proceeds of the fixed deposit (along with interest) to the bank account of the entities/person from whose possession the same was resumed during search conducted.

Whether slump sale will attract GST. If yes then under which Section?

Whether slump sale will attract GST. If yes then under which Section?

Page: