Whether activity of surface coating undertaken by the Applicant in the State of Maharashtra on original/new goods received from Customer is classifiable under service accounting code 9988 more specifically under code 998898 as job work activity chargeable to tax at 12% in terms of entry no. 26(id) of Notification 11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) as amended or at 18% in terms of entry no. 26(iv) of Notification no. 11/2017.
In re Kayal Infra (GST AAR West Bengal) Whether the project which is currently under construction by the applicant can be treated as (i) Residential Real Estate Project (RREP) and (ii) affordable residential apartment and what shall be the rate of tax on such supply. (i) The project referred to in the instant application which […]
eForm MSC-1 – Application to ROC for obtaining the status of dormant company Part I – Law(s) Governing the eForm MSC-1 Section and Rule Number(s) eForm MSC-1 is required to be filed pursuant to sub-section (1) of Section 455 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 3 of Companies (Miscellaneous) Rules, 2014 which are reproduced […]
State Tax Officer Vs Y.Balakrishnan (Kerala High Court) (1) The provisions of section 130 of the Act contemplate release of goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation at two stages (i) during the process of adjudication, under section 130(2) and, (ii) post-adjudication under section 130(3) of the Act. (2) At the time of […]
As far as the goods infringing the IPR (counterfeit goods) are concerned, once they are found to have violated the Rights of the rights holder, as per Rule 6, they become prohibited goods under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 111(d) squarely applies to prohibited goods which are imported. As confirmed by assessee, since the goods were not even ordered by them and were sent by mistake, confiscation of goods u/s 111(l) is correct and proper.
After framing of the assessment made under Section 143(3) of the Act, tangible material came into the hands of the AO through the investigation wing and upon perusal of the same, he made independent inquiries and applied his mind and upon due satisfaction, he formed an opinion that, the income has escaped assessment.
Yasir Amin Khan Vs Abdul Rashid Ganie (Jammu and Kashmir High Court) Facts- Special Mobile Magistrate convicted a man and punished him with simple imprisonment for a term of 6 months in a cheque bounce case of INR 10 Lakhs and in addition, he was also held liable to pay compensation of INR 2 Lakhs […]
M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. & Anr Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) Facts- The main issue raised was whether petitioners/purchasing HSD oil dealers who have been denied a refund of excess tax by the Respondent State Government of West Bengal which was admittedly collected by it from the petitioners through the […]
EIG (Mauritius) Limited Vs McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited (Calcutta High Court) Facts- An application for enforcement of a foreign arbitral award dated 19th June 2020 and an addendum dated 26th October 2020 moved by the petitioner (i.e., EIG Mauritius) against the respondent (i.e., McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited). However, the prayer for execution had […]
Commissioner of GST And Central Excise Vs Citi Bank N.A. (Supreme Court of India) Issue- Whether Interchange fees received out of Merchant Discount Rate(MDR) by the issuing bank from accepting bank in relation to credit card transactions carried on a customer is liable to be taxed to service tax in the hands of the bank […]
