Goods and Services Tax : The Gujarat High Court examined whether a taxpayer’s selection of “No” for personal hearing could override the statutory req...
Goods and Services Tax : The Orissa High Court examined whether tax could be demanded after reversal of the disputed ITC. It held that raising a fresh dema...
Goods and Services Tax : The Rajasthan High Court examined whether GST registration could be refused due to non-filing of returns in another State. It held...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court stayed a judgment that held mere uploading of notices and orders on the GST portal does not amount to valid comm...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court refused to bypass the statutory GST appeal mechanism and directed the taxpayer to pursue appellate remedies. How...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore Supreme Court's scrutiny of whether supplying cranes for services like loading, unloading, lifting, and shifting qualifies...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the case of Pradeep Kanthed v. Union of India where the Supreme Court issues notice to the Finance Ministry regarding the ...
Goods and Services Tax : Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax & Ors Vs Safari Retreats Private Limited & Ors (Supreme Court of India) The ...
Goods and Services Tax : The 45th meeting of Goods and Services Tax Council (“GST Council”) is scheduled to be held on September 17, 2021. The Ministry...
Custom Duty, Income Tax : The Karnataka High Court in M/s Pellagic Food Ingredients Private Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 14737/2021[T-CUS] issu...
Goods and Services Tax : The Gujarat High Court ruled that the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation exclusion must be considered while computing timelines...
Goods and Services Tax : The Delhi High Court held that exoneration under Section 73 does not automatically bar proceedings under Section 74 because both p...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether a single GST show cause notice can cover multiple financial years under Section 7...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court took up a challenge to Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act where ITC was denied despite tax having been paid by the...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court prima facie observed that Section 67(4) permits sealing of premises only when access is denied. It issued notice...
Excise Duty : Notification No. 32/2015-Central Excise Dated- 4th June, 2015 Ethanol produced from molasses generated from cane crushed in the ...
Service Tax : Circular No. 184/3/2015-ST Dated the 3rd June, 2015 It is further clarified that exemption from service tax still continues to ser...
Custom Duty : the floods in the State of Jammu and Kashmir (the State) from whole of the duty as specified under the First Schedule and whole of...
Excise Duty : Grants exemption from Basic Excise Duty to goods donated or purchased out of cash donations for the relief and rehabilitation of p...
Custom Duty : New posts have been created in the rank of Commissioners of Customs in DRI and DGCEI for adjudication of cases as investigated by ...
Allahabad High Court held that an Advocate cannot be prosecuted merely for filing a statutory GST appeal and advising a legal course of action. The key takeaway is that professional representation alone does not establish criminal conspiracy with a client.
The Supreme Court took up a challenge to Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act where ITC was denied despite tax having been paid by the immediate supplier. The case raises the issue of whether a recipient can be penalized for alleged default by a supplier further up the supply chain.
The Supreme Court prima facie observed that Section 67(4) permits sealing of premises only when access is denied. It issued notice and sought instructions from the Department on the taxpayer’s request for de-sealing.
The High Court set aside the rectification order after finding that it was passed without granting the taxpayer an opportunity of personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
The Supreme Court upheld the view that assignment of leasehold rights in industrial land is a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and not a supply of service. As a result, GST was held not applicable on the transaction.
The Bombay High Court ruled that GSTAT can grant interim stay against recovery proceedings even without an express statutory provision. The decision confirms that appellate powers inherently include powers necessary to make the appeal effective.
The Karnataka High Court held that the two-year limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act is mandatory. However, it condoned a six-month delay through writ jurisdiction because double taxation was undisputed and directed processing of the refund.
The Telangana High Court held that the arrest was supported by material collected during the investigation indicating involvement in alleged GST evasion and online gaming operations. The Court found no illegality in the exercise of arrest powers under the CGST Act.
The Allahabad High Court held that service of a GST show cause notice solely through the common portal is insufficient once registration has been cancelled. The adjudication order was quashed for violating principles of natural justice.
The Supreme Court stayed further proceedings arising from a Section 74 GST order while examining whether writ petitions can be entertained despite statutory appellate remedies. The Court linked the matter with a pending case involving similar jurisdictional and natural justice concerns.
