Financier-in-possession of a motor/transport vehicle liable to pay tax under U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997: SC
Supreme Court: While dealing with the scope of Section 12 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997, bench of MR Shah*
Supreme Court: While dealing with the scope of Section 12 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997, bench of MR Shah*
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) dismissed the application filed by the Revenue (CCE & ST,
by Tarun Jain†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 4
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., directed the Indian Bank to refund the 25% auction
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal wherein the refund claim was denied in
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal brief facts of which were that
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal which was filed with the point of
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal in which the Tribunal had to decide
“A claim to refund is governed by statute. There is no constitutional entitlement to seek a refund.”
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Mumbai (MahaRERA): While focusing on the definition of carpet area in Pre-RERA and Post-RERA, Coram of Ajoy
Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai: Coram of Justice Tarun Agarwala (Presiding Officer) and Justice M.T. Joshi (Judicial Member), upheld the direction given by
Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: The Division Bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Anil Srivastava (Member) addresses a builder-buyer dispute
“No justifiable reason why Section 69-A of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 should only incentivize the methods of out-of-court settlement stated in Section 89, CPC and afford step brotherly treatment to other methods availed of by the parties.”
Tripura High Court: A Division Bench of Akil Kureshi, CJ and S.G. Chattopadhyay J., while allowing the present petition, held, “One department
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal filed against the rejection of refund
“We cannot lose sight of the present situation prevailing in the country and across the globe”
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P. Dinesha (Judicial Member), allowed an appeal filed with the issue of denial of
G.S.R. 571(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4), (8), (9), (10) and (11) of Section 125 and
Meghalaya High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, CJ and S.R. Sen, J. dismissed a petition on being infructuous.
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of S. Ravindra Bhat and Anu Malhotra, JJ. allowed an appeal for refund of service