CBIC vide Instruction No. 03/2022-GST instructs GST officials to upload Speaking Order along with GST Refund sanction order in FORM GST RFD-06 and also specified that Post-Audit may be conducted within 3 months from issue of FORM GST RFD-06 order for GST Refund claims exceeding Rs. 1 Lakh. F. No. CBEC-20/16/35/2019-GST Government of India Ministry […]
CBDT notifies Cost Inflation Index for Financial Year 2022-23 at 331 vide Notification No. 62/2022-Income Tax | Dated: 14th June, 2022.
In re Audio Distribution House Pvt. Ltd (CAAR Mumbai) CAAR held that projectors Optoma X309ST, Optoma X319ST, Optoma W319ST, Optoma ZW350 and Optoma ZX300 are classifiable under sub-heading 85286200 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and would be eligible to avail benefit of Sr. No. 17 of Notification No. 24/2005-Customs, dated […]
CAAR held that Creative Touch 5-series Interactive Flat Panel (IFP) (Model-5652RK, 5752RK, 5862RK) merit classification under sub heading 8471 4190 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
TC77 series touch computer, which is a handheld mobile computer used for asset inventory management purposes, Singapore Customs ruled (ref. No. CRL-211217-0036) that the product is classifiable under subheading 84713090. Therefore, notwithstanding the WCO classification advice to the contrary, it is my considered opinion that the devices under consideration are not classifiable as smartphones. They merit classification under subheading 84713090.
Jar Productions Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Agreement executed between the petitioner and the ASCL shows that the approved production budget includes all costs in connection with the production services including the amount of Indian Goods and Services Tax Act. This shows that GST is included in all costs in connection […]
Ashwani Kumar Singla Vs Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (Competition Commission of India) The Commission observes that while determination of price of a drug and the aspects pertaining to its labeling may not be in the domain of the Commission, however, any unfair or discriminatory conduct in relation thereto by a dominant entity can be assessed […]
In re Cartelisation in the supply of Protective Tubes to Indian Railways (Competition Commission of India) Facts: 1. The present matter was initiated by the Commission suo motu, pursuant to receipt of an application under Section 46 of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act) read with Regulation 5 of the Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) […]
Hexa Communications Private Limited Vs Atos India Private Limited (Competition Commission of India) The Commission, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, observes that there shall not be any requirement of defining a precise relevant market for the assessment of dominance of the Opposite Party. The products of the Opposite Party, namely, enterprise […]
The biggest pull-out of Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs) of Rs. 201, 500 crore (as on May 30th, 2022) is a major negative hit in the history of Indian Stock Market.
