Gujarat High Court
Plea That Signed Copy Of Award Was Not Received Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi has held that the plea that limitation period for challenging the award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) did not start as the signed copy of the award was not received by the party, cannot be raised for the first time in appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts: The present appeals have been filed against orders passed by the Civil...
Subsidiary Supplying To Parent Company In Independent Capacity Cannot Be Considered 'Intermediary Service' U/S 2(13) IGST Act: Gujarat HC
The Gujarat High Court has made it clear that where a subsidiary company provides goods or services to its parent company in its independent capacity, it cannot be said that such services fall under 'intermediary service' under Section 2(13) of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The provision defines “intermediary” as a broker, an agent or any other person who arranges or facilitates the supply of goods or services or both, between two or more persons. In the case at...
Court's Jurisdiction U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Against Award Under MSMED Act Is Determined By Agreement Between Parties: Gujarat HC
The Gujarat High Court bench of Mrs. Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Mr.Justice Pranav Trivedi of has held that the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act' 1996 as to challenge the award passed under Section 18(4) of the MSMED Act' 2006, would be governed by the agreement between the parties which has conferred exclusive jurisdiction to a particular Court. Brief Facts The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order...
GST | Delhi HC Orders Refund Of Service Tax Paid On Ocean Freight, Cites Gujarat HC Judgment Declaring It Unconstitutional
The Delhi High Court on Thursday ordered the GST Department to refund the service tax paid by certain importers on ocean freight (transportation of goods by vessel). In doing so, a division bench Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma cited the Gujarat High Court's judgment in M/s Sal Steel Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India (2019) where it was declared that levy of service tax on ocean freight is unconstitutional. The Gujarat High Court had rendered the decision in connection...
Mere Existence Of Arbitration Clause In Agreement Does Not Automatically Bar Jurisdiction Of Civil Court: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court bench of Justice Divyesh A. Joshi has held that mere existence of arbitration clause in the agreement does not bar jurisdiction of the civil court automatically. Brief Facts This Civil Revision Application under section 115 of the CPC has been filed against an order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad by which an application under section 8 was rejected. The dispute arose from allegations of mismanagement and refusal to share accounts and...
Certified Copy Not Necessary To File GST Appeal, Order Downloaded From Site Enough: Gujarat High Court
Quashing an order of the tax authority which rejected a GST Appeal due to non-submission of a certified copy, the Gujarat High Court said that when an appealed order is available on a common portal and can be directly accessed by the Appellate Authority, there should be no need to submit a “certified copy” to confirm its authenticity.The court further underscored that in today's age insistence on certified copy of orders which can be obtained directly from the website of judicial and...
Requirement Of Serving Notice On Other Party For Appointment Of Arbitrator Is Dispensed With In Statutory Arbitration: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that the arbitration proceedings under consideration is not a commercial arbitration, but a statutory arbitration. The Arbitrator is appointed pursuant to the provisions of Section 84(5) of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act. The appointment of the Arbitrator is made by the State Government on behalf of the Central Government. The argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the...
Award In Which Serious Allegations Of Fraud Are Not Decided Must Be Set Aside On Grounds Of Patent Illegality: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court Bench of Chief Justice SUNITA AGARWAL and Justice PRANAV TRIVEDI affirmed that if serious allegations of fraud are raised that the arbitration agreement was entered into by fraud and collusion and such allegations are not decided by the Arbitrator while passing an award, such an award is liable to set aside on the ground of patent illegality under section 34 of the Arbitration Act Brief Facts The present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and...
GST Rate On Bricks With Less Than 90% Fly Ash Content To Be Charged At 5% Instead Of 18%: Gujarat High Court Clarifies
The Gujarat High Court on 25th September (Wednesday) held/clarified the Goods and Services Tax (GST) applicable to fly ash bricks and blocks with less than 90% fly ash content. The court ruled that the products qualify for the lower GST rate of 5%, than 18% GST rate on products not meeting the 90% fly ash threshold and quashed and aside the orders of the Advance Ruling Authority and Advance Ruling Appellate Authority. The fly ash, a by-product from thermal power plants, is used as a key material...
Mentioning Proposed Penalty In Declaration Under SVLDR Scheme Not Incorrect: Gujarat HC
The Gujarat High Court has held that Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) is applicable to any show cause notice for penalty/late fee, irrespective of whether it is under adjudication or appeal. A division bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Mauna M. Bhatt cited FAQs of the scheme as per which, any person who has a show cause notice (SCN) for demand of duty/tax and where the final hearing has not taken place as on June 30, 2019, is eligible to file...
Notice Issued U/S 148A(B) Of Income Tax Act Against Dissolved Firm Is Not Valid: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court stated that notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 19861 against dissolved firm is not valid. The Division Bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Mauna M. Bhatt was dealing with a case where the Assessing Officer/respondent issued an impugned notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the name of the partnership firm and also passed an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act against the same firm, which had already...
S. 68 Of Income Tax Act Not Attracted When There Is No Unexplained Amount In Bank Statement: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court stated that there cannot be any income escapement by the assessee if there is no unexplained amount in the bank statement on record. The Bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Mauna M. Bhatt observed that “the reason given by the Assessing Officer for alleged escapement of Rs.3,25,00,000/- is not sustainable since there is no unexplained amount in the bank statement on record since the assessee did not retain the amount of Rs.3,25,00,000/- and as such the...