Form GSTR–3B is summary return inserted by Government vide Rule 61 of the CGST Rules, 2017 in lieu of Form –GSTR-3. It is a summary return in place of GSTR-3. Form was introduced as time gap arrangement to collect the tax from the payer of tax.
The question raised in this batch of Appeals is as to whether the instructions/circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 9.2.2011 will have retrospective operation or not.
Various representations have been received from Foreign Diplomatic Missions / UN Organizations regarding unwillingness of the vendors / suppliers to record the UIN (Unique Identify Number) while making sales to such Missions / Consulates or UN organizations.
Bombay High Court held in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Commissioner of Central Service that While deciding an application for stay of demand, the Appellate Tribunal can only consider the prima facie case of merits. It cannot give a final finding on the merits and decide the appeal itself
Shri R K Jain Vs. Indian Bank Association (IBA) (Central Information Commission) Taking into account that the IBA performs functions as State agency and its majority control vests in Government of India appointed Managing Directors of Public Sector Banks, the IBA qualifies to be a public authority under the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, therefore, directs the IBA […]
he Goods and Services Tax, which was implemented from July 1, subsumes all the indirect taxes that businesses earlier paid the Centre and states separately, with the aim of creating a common market. It involved a complete overhaul of the tax filing system.
Addition on account of discount extended to prepaid distributors Third proviso to section 194H will get attracted only when the nature of payment is “commission or brokerage”. Parties before us agree that majorly the distribution of products by BSNL and MTNL takes place through Public Call Office franchisees since this was an infrastructure existing with […]
After the roll out of GST on 1st July 2017, there have been more then 200 amendments in just 133 days. Most of the changes were made to cover the software lapses and some were related to accommodate the valid demands of rationalization in tariff rates from businessmen from across the nation.
It is abundantly clear that the very basis of the penalty proceedings was set aside by the Tribunal in an appeal against the assessment order. There was no addition of income. On the contrary, the case of the assessee, which was negated by the assessing officer of carrying on the business of draft discounting, is accepted by the Tribunal. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would not arise.
M/s. Jaap Auto Distributors Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) A Writ Court cannot make a fact finding exercise to ascertain, which would be an appropriate entry under which the goods are to be classified. In fact, under the normal course in respect of classification disputes, the High Court cannot entertain an appeal […]
