Mumbai Court January 2010 Judgments

Karan Dileep Nevatia Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through the Commerce ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR127; 2010(172)LC1(Bombay)

Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing forthwith.2. The petitioner is engaged in the import of foreign liquor viz. wines and distribution of the same under FL-I Licence No. 113 granted by the Collector of Mumbai city. Respondent 1 is the Union of India, through the Commerce Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Industry. Respondent 2 is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent 3 is the Commissioner of State Excise appointed under Section 3 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. Respondent 4 is the Collector of Mumbai city.3. Gist of the petitioner's case needs to be briefly stated. Sometime in the month of May, 2007, the petitioner filed an application with respondent 4 in the name of his proprietary concern, M/s. Kunal Vintners, for the purpose of obtaining a wholesale licence under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 known as 'FL-I' for distribution of wines and liquor in the State of Maharashtra. The same was granted to the peti...

Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

1. Rule. With the consent of learned Counsel, Rule is made returnable forthwith and on the request of the learned Counsel, rule is taken up for final hearing.2. An appeal was filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai pertaining to assessment year 2003-04 by the petitioner against the order dated 8th March, 2009 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)- X, Mumbai. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 7th July, 2009 on the ground that no approval was obtained of the Committee on Disputes constituted in pursuance to the judgment of the Supreme Court in ONGC v. Collector of Central Excise : 1992 Suppl (2) Supreme Court Cases 432.3. The Tribunal, in the course of its judgment noted that the assessee is an undertaking owned by the Government of Maharashtra and then proceeded on the basis that 'admittedly approval has to be obtained from Committee on Disputes in order to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal'.4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the...

State of Maharashtra Through Secretary and anr. Vs. Prabhakar Shivaji ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR641

Bobde S.A., J.1. The State of Maharashtra has challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 2.11.2000 by which the Tribunal has granted deemed date of promotion to the respondent No. 1. According to the Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 ought to have been promoted as Police Head Constable/Assistant Police Sub Inspector w.e.f. 24.3.21989 and 1.10.1995 respectively, the dates on which, his juniors were promoted.2. Smt. Dangre, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the petitioner/State submitted that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous in that it grants deemed date of promotions from dates when the petitioner could not have been promoted. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, we find that there is no doubt that the respondent No. 1 who belongs Scheduled Caste Category has in fact been superseded in promotion to the post of Head Constable and Assistant Police Sub-Inspector, by other persons who were junior to ...

M/S. Anvil Capital Management (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) This appeal along with the stay applications is filed by the appellant against the confirmation of demand of Service Tax with interest and penalty under Section 78 and Section 76 of the Finance Act. 2. The facts of the case are that on scrutiny of the service tax record it was noticed that there is the difference between the brokerage amount shown in ST-3 returns and respective ledger account maintained by them. The brokerage as per ST-3 return was Rs.3,46,01,631/- and as per ledger account was Rs. 3,68,84,783/- and making the total difference of Rs.22,83,152/-. A show cause notice was issued, Service Tax was confirmed along with the interest was imposed. Aggrieved from the same, the appellant preferred an appeal which was rejected. Aggrieved form the same appellant is before me. 3. The learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant submits that the brokerage income of the transactions done for the period 21/24-3-2001 to 30-3-2001 was accounte...

M/S. Alert Intelligence Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellant has filed this appeal along with the stay petition against the order of upholding the confirmation of Service Tax of Rs.20,037/- under Section 71 with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, and the penalties of Rs. 20,037/- under Section 76 and equivalent amount of penalty under Section 78 and a penalty of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant, in Income Tax return for the year 2003-04 filed with the Income Tax department, has shown receipt of Rs.4,56,325.60 on account of Security Service Charges. The appellant has filed ST-3 return for the half year ending September 2003 showing the receipt of Rs.2,05,864/- and paid service tax of Rs. 14,576/- but the appellant has not paid the service tax neither filed the ST-3 return for the half year ending March 2004. Thus the appellant has rendered the security services during the year 2003-04 and received Rs.4,56,325.60 on accoun...