Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 15 of about 723 results (0.042 seconds)Ashish and ors Vs. Govt. of Nct Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 888/2013 and CM APPL. 1687/2013 IN THE MATTER OF : ASHISH AND ORS Decided on 28.01.2014 Through: Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocate ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shariq Mohammad, Advocate for R-1 and R-2. Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate for R-3/Samiti. CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying inter alia for quashing and setting aside the order dated 31.01.2013, passed by the respondent No.2/Additional Collector/Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, North District, Delhi, in an appeal preferred by the respondent No.3/Samiti.2. Vide order dated 31.01.2013, the respondent No.2 had stated that he was making compliances of an order dated 26.11.2012 passed by the High Court in W.P.(C) 7360/2012, a petition filed by the respondent No.3/Samiti herein, whereunder directions were issued to the respondent No.2 to consider the rep...
Tag this Judgment!M.C.D. Vs. Ashfaq Ahmed and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.120/2001 & CM No.6310/2011 % M.C.D. Through:28. h January,2014 ......Appellant. Ms. Amita Gupta, Advocate. VERSUS ASHFAQ AHMED & ANR. Through: ...... Respondents. Ms. Anju Lal, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. In this regular second appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed on 23.4.2007:- 2.1. Whether the suit filed by the respondent was maintainable before Civil Court in view of bar provided by Section 169 of the DMC Act read with Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act?. In exercise of my powers under Section 100 (5) proviso CPC, in addition, I also frame the following substantial questions of law:2.3. RSA1202001 Whether a licencee such as the respondent-plaintiff is not liable to pay property tax under Section 120 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (in short DMC Act), 1957?. Whether the occupier of the land is not liab...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Gupta (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-xi and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on 28.01.2014 + W.P.(C) 7660/2012 MOHAN GUPTA (HUF) ..... Petitioner Through: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sh. Vikas Jain, Sh. Sanat Kapoor and Sh. Ankit Gupta, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XI AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. Judy James, Jr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. This writ petition challenges orders dated 26.03.2012 and 09.08.2012 of the Income Tax authorities under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for reassessment for the A.Y. 200506.2. The petitioner/assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family, represented by its karta Mohan Gupta. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2005-06 declaring net income of `16,98,732/-. W.P.(C)7660/2012 Page 1 This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on 26.03.2012, the R...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur Vs. M/S. Lloyd Tar Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. All the five appeals filed by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical. 2. After hearing both the sides, duly represented by Shri R K. Mishra, learned AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Jitin Singhal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-assessee, I find that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of different kind of excisable goods. They were receiving the services of goods transport operator during the period 16.11.97 to 1.6.98. In terms of provisions of rule 2(i)(d)(xvi) and (xvii) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 a recipient of services of GTA were to pay the service tax. The said Rule was struck down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati vs. Union of India [ 1999 (112) ELT 365 (SC)]. 3. Thereafter the law was amended retrospectively vide Finance Bill 2000 and 2003 and the recipient of GTA services were made liable to pay the tax from the beginning. In the light of the a...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Deepak Vs. Commissioner of Customs and St Kanpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. As per facts on record, the appellant imported certain lighting fixtures and filed bill of entry. Dispute by the Customs authorities is as regards the valuation and the same was subsequently enhanced. The appellant cleared the goods on payment of higher duty amount of Rs.3,12,418/- 2. Subsequently the order of enhancement of value was challenged by the appellant before the higher authorities and the Tribunal vide its order No. C/241-242/2011 dated 3.6.2011 allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The appellant accordingly filed refund claim of excess duty amount of Rs.3,12,418/- which stand rejected by the lower authorities on the ground of unjust enrichment. 3. I find that the appellants while issuing invoices to their customs stamped the same - extra customs duty deposited vide challan dated 10.3.06 not charged from the buyers on goods imported vide Bill of Entry dated 24/06 dated 7.3.2006. Though the appellant have produced only photocopies of the said inv...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Agarwal Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur Ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. After hearing both sides, I find that the demand of Rs. 1,02,937/- stand confirmed against the appellant on the ground that during the period 8.7.04 to 3.2.05, they have provided rent-a-cab services and outdoor catering services without keeping themselves registered. 2. Without going into the details on merits of the case, I find that the show cause notice which was issued on 26.4.06 proposing imposition of penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994 culminated into an order passed by original adjudicating authorities after holding the demand of duty along with imposition of penalties under section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act. However, as regards the imposition of penalty under section 78, he observed that since it is a new tax, so he takes a lenient view and extends the benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the purpose of imposition of penalties under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. As such, no penalty was imposed under section 78...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Rail Tech and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Anot ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. The appellants is engaged in the manufacture of railway parts falling under Chapter 86 of Central Excise and Tariff Act. The goods were being supplied by them exclusively to the railways. 2. The dispute in the present appeal relates to availability of Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs so received by them. It is seen that the appellants took excess credit of Rs. 1,81,206/-. The said credit was availed by them by adopting the assessable value instead of duty paid. The appellants admitted their mistake and on being pointed out by the Revenue, they reversed the credit along with interest of Rs. 14,800/-. 3. In the above scenario, it is the contention of the appellant that no penalty should be imposed upon them inasmuch as the mistake was an inadvertent error on the part of the person maintaining the records. 4. I agree with the above contention of the appellants. Admittedly, taking credit equivalent to the value of the goods in respect of duty of excise reflect...
Tag this Judgment!Shakuntla Pahuja Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A): 1. Following relief has been sought in this O.A.:- (A)Quash and set aside the pay fixation order bearing No. 2/2/2007-CGIT-I/ND/220 dated 23/24.03.2011 (Annexure-A1) and also the directions issued by the respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 vide letter No. Z-20017/01/2010-CLS-II(Pt.I) dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure-A2). (B)Restore the pay fixation order dated 19.04.2010 Annexure-A4) passed by respondent No.2. (C) Direct the respondents to pay the applicant a sum of Rs.2,01,503/- recovered from her gratuity amount along with interest @ 12% per annum. (D) Direct the respondents to revise the pension of the applicant on the basis of Rs.25,320/-, the last pay drawn in accordance with the pay fixation dated 19.04.2010 (Annexure-A4). (E)Award the cost for the present petition. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the applicant was appointed as L.D.C. in the office of District and Session Judge, Delhi on 25.05.1974. Subsequently, she cleared the test and was appointed a...
Tag this Judgment!Sddhartha Dey Vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Finan ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Raj Vir Sharma, Member(J): 1. In this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following relief; (a) to direct the respondent to waive/withdraw the amount Rs.4175/- as has been shown as outstanding by Zonal Accounts Office, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Kolkata, in view of office memo dt.6.2.2006 to direct the respondents to consider settlement of Bills according to the Office Memo dt.6.2.2006 to direct the respondents to grant all the consequential benefits. To pass any other order/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Award cost. 2. The brief facts of the applicants case are that while working as Private Secretary in the Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi, he was selected and appointed as Senior Private Secretary by the Settlement Commission (Income Tax and Wealth Tax), Additional Branch, Kolkota, on deputation basis for a period of three years, which was extendable by another year. He joined the Settlement Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Astron Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C. E., Delhi Iv
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. Raghuram, J. 1. The appeal is preferred against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi IV, dated 19.11.2012. 2. The assessee is the appellant. The Appellate Commissioner partly allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty imposed under Sections 76, 77 and 78 while upholding demand of service tax and interest, confirmed by the primary authority. . 3. A show cause notice was issued on 10.9.2010 alleging that audit of the assessee from 22.6.09 to 26.6.09 for the period 2005-06 to 2007-08 revealed that the assessee company had received Rs.14,40,000/- on renting of immovable property for commercial purpose and was liable to remit service tax along with the appropriate interest thereon. Liability to penalty was also indicated in the show cause notice. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Faridabad IV passed the adjudication order dated 28.2.2012 confirming a service tax demand of Rs.1,77,984/- apart from interest under Section 75 and penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of ...
Tag this Judgment!