142 (10)

M. Venkata Rao Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Executive Engineer and Anr. – Karnataka High Court

  Start Free Trial ↗ Already have an account or subscription? Log in below to continue. Login Access Default, Dispute, and Debt Resolution Laws Password Email OTP WhatsApp OTP Google Username or Email Password 👁 Remember this device Log In Forgot Password? Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP Remember this device

M. Venkata Rao Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Executive Engineer and Anr. – Karnataka High Court Read Post »

U.P. Public Works Deptt. Vs. Vriddhi Infratech India Pvt. Ltd. – Allahabad High Court

  Start Free Trial ↗ Already have an account or subscription? Log in below to continue. Login Access Default, Dispute, and Debt Resolution Laws Password Email OTP WhatsApp OTP Google Username or Email Password 👁 Remember this device Log In Forgot Password? Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP Remember this device

U.P. Public Works Deptt. Vs. Vriddhi Infratech India Pvt. Ltd. – Allahabad High Court Read Post »

Where challenge to GST demand on BOT annuity receipts turns on service classification, exemption under Entry 23A and competence of officers acting under notifications issued under Sections 3 and 5 of the CGST Act, and no patent lack of jurisdiction or other exception to the rule of alternate remedy is established, writ petition against the show cause notice and Order-in-Original is not maintainable and the assessee must pursue appeal under Section 107 – Jorabat Shillong Expressway Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Meghalaya High Court

  Start Free Trial ↗ Already have an account or subscription? Log in below to continue. Login Access Default, Dispute, and Debt Resolution Laws Password Email OTP WhatsApp OTP Google Username or Email Password 👁 Remember this device Log In Forgot Password? Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP Remember this device

Where challenge to GST demand on BOT annuity receipts turns on service classification, exemption under Entry 23A and competence of officers acting under notifications issued under Sections 3 and 5 of the CGST Act, and no patent lack of jurisdiction or other exception to the rule of alternate remedy is established, writ petition against the show cause notice and Order-in-Original is not maintainable and the assessee must pursue appeal under Section 107 – Jorabat Shillong Expressway Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Meghalaya High Court Read Post »

Kunal BSBK Joint Venture Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chhattisgarh Housing Board – Chhattisgarh High Court

  Start Free Trial ↗ Already have an account or subscription? Log in below to continue. Login Access Default, Dispute, and Debt Resolution Laws Password Email OTP WhatsApp OTP Google Username or Email Password 👁 Remember this device Log In Forgot Password? Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP Remember this device

Kunal BSBK Joint Venture Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chhattisgarh Housing Board – Chhattisgarh High Court Read Post »

Tam Tam Venkataramana Reddy Vs. Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and Anr. – Karnataka High Court

  Start Free Trial ↗ Already have an account or subscription? Log in below to continue. Login Access Default, Dispute, and Debt Resolution Laws Password Email OTP WhatsApp OTP Google Username or Email Password 👁 Remember this device Log In Forgot Password? Email Send OTP Enter OTP Verify & Login Resend OTP Remember this device

Tam Tam Venkataramana Reddy Vs. Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and Anr. – Karnataka High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top