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 ...
The Bombay High Court held that assignment of leasehold rights in immovable property is a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and not a supply of services under GST. The ruling clarifies that such transactions fall outside Section 7 read with Schedule II of the GST Act.
The Madras High Court held that penalties under Section 122 of the CGST Act must equal the ineligible ITC availed or passed on in circular trading cases. The Court ruled that the Rs.10,000 limit cannot apply where the statute uses the phrase “whichever is higher.”
The Karnataka High Court held that TCS liability under Section 52 arises only when an e-commerce operator collects payment for supplies made through its platform. Since the operator merely facilitated transactions without collecting consideration, GST proceedings under Section 74 were quashed.
The Bombay High Court ruled that GST authorities cannot create a negative balance in the Electronic Credit Ledger while blocking ITC under Rule 86A.
The Court held that blocking of the electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A cannot continue beyond the statutory one-year period. It clarified that such restriction automatically lapses by operation of law regardless of pending departmental proceedings.
The court held that Sections 73 and 74 allow show cause notices for any period, not limited to a financial year. Consolidated notices are valid, subject to limitation checks for each period.
The central issue was whether incomplete notices satisfy legal requirements. The Court ruled that mere reproduction of statutory language without factual foundation is insufficient. The decision reinforces strict adherence to natural justice principles.
The issue was whether the 2019 amendment to Section 54 could limit earlier refund claims. The Court ruled that the amendment is prospective and cannot affect pre-amendment entitlements. Claims were held valid within extended timelines.
The Court examined whether employees could be penalised under Section 122(1A) for company-level GST violations. It held that only “taxable persons” fall within the scope of the provision, excluding employees without independent registration.
The Tribunal held that service tax cannot be demanded again under RCM if already paid by the service provider. However, the benefit applies only when full payment is conclusively proven.
