Characterising it as ‘sketchy’ and ‘non-speaking’, Rajasthan High Court sets aside the order of the Joint Commissioner, GST
It suffered from non-application of mind and was in violation of mandatory requirement of section 75 (6) of the CGST Act.
It suffered from non-application of mind and was in violation of mandatory requirement of section 75 (6) of the CGST Act.
Madras High Court: Anita Sumanth, J. set aside the impugned order which rejected a registration application filed under Section 22
Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ. and Narayan Singh Dhanik, J. decided on a petition which was
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai: Coram of P. Dinesha (Member) and P. Venkata Subba Rao (Member) allowed the
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Bench of Ramalingam Sudhakar, J., allowed the appeal against an order of the Deputy Commissioner on
Patna High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J. quashed an office order issued against a delinquent employee
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, New Delhi: A Division bench comprising of N.K. Patil, J. and S.D. Dubey (Technical Member) allowed an appeal, filed
Allahabad High Court: A writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of Divisional Head Manager, UPSRTC, whereby