AAR ruled that Royalty amount is includable while arriving at the transaction value for payment of applicable GST on the supply of services rendered by the assessee to the main contractor under Section 15 of CGST Act and 18% GST is applicable on Royalty amount under RCM.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that reverse charge not applicable on bank charges in respect of the foreign currency transaction between their local foreign banks engaged in facilitating the transfer of foreign exchange.
Mobile Store Limited Vs Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Calcutta High Court) 1. This intra-Court appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 29th November, 2022 in W.P.A. 23900 of 2022. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant praying for a direction upon the respondents to refund the amount of excess […]
Vodafone Mauritius Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Ms Fereshte D. Sethna, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that the principal allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, which is a foreign company incorporated under the laws of Mauritius, had sold shares worth Rs.1295 crores, of an Indian company going by the […]
Kailash Kedia Vs ITO (Orissa High Court) Learned counsel for the Petitioners have also assailed both the notice under Section 148-A(1)(b) of the Act as well as the consequential order under Section 148-A(1)(d) on several grounds including the ground of limitation, not considering the objections filed, not providing a personal hearing, non-application of mind to […]
Cinepolis India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Mumbai) These appeals of M/s Cinepolis India Pvt Ltd, against order-in-original no. MUM/CGST/MW/COMMR/AK/42-43/2020-21 dated 26th February 2021 of Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West, arise from the unique deployment of constituents, that make up channel entities involved in exhibition of cinematographic films, in an arrangement by which […]
Messrs Dic Fine Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E (CESTAT Ahmedabad) As regard the issue that whether the refund claim can be rejected on the ground that the input services on which the refund claim was made by SEZ is not approved by the approval committee. As per the facts of the present case the refund […]
Motiprabha Infratech Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India (Patna High Court) Undisputedly, minimum statutory period of 30 days mandated under the provisions of Section 74(A) of CGST/BGST Act, 2017 was not afforded to the petitioner for making payment due and prior to the expiry of 30 days, the assessing officer proceeded to pass the order, […]
KPG Enterprise Vs C.C.E. Jamnagar (prev.) (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue mainly involved is whether MEA S.O. 2158(E) dated 20.06.2016 prohibited the subject vessel imported for breaking purpose. The case of the department is that S.O. dated 20.06.2016 is issued in order to implement the UNSC resolutions and prohibited the subject vessel for entry into India […]
Mehta Enterprise Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) As there has been an order of confiscation, learned advocate Mr. D.K.Puj, learned advocate requires this to be withdrawn. According to him, he will have an opportunity to then take a legal recourse which he wants to explore. Matter is being disposed of without entering into […]
