Kerala High Court held that statutory charge created against dealers as per the provisions of KGST Act, 1963 and KVAT Act, 2003, prior to any mortgage made, against the dealer would remain intact, even if the property is sold by Bank.
Office of the Commissioner of CGST (Audit) vide letter dated 10.10.2022 has informed that M/s Aegis LifeSciences Pvt. Limited having GSTN 24AARCA8892L1ZS and Adgis Lifescience, Partnership concern having GSTIN 24AARCA8892L1ZS are still operating /running both partnership firm as well as Pvt. Limited Company under GST even after the change in constitution of the business at […]
Understand the importance of Place of Supply of Goods & Services for optimized GST calculation. Learn how it affects CGST, SGST, & IGST to figure out the right rate.
Grow your investments & save tax this year Union Budget 2023 brings big changes for individual taxpayers. Discover the wishlist here!
ITAT Delhi held that adoption of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method for determining Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the international transaction is unjustified.
In re Om Prakash Agarwal, Prop. M/s. Mittal Trading Company (GST AAR Rajasthan) Q1. Applicability of Notification No. 11/2017 – Central Tax Rate dt. 28th June, 2017 amended with Notification No. 24/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dt. 21.09.2017 and further amended vide notification no. 31/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dt. 13.10.2017, and furthermore amended vide […]
In re Bhori Lal Mohan Lal (AAR Rajasthan) i) whether applicant’s tender of work contract under Chief Minister Jan Awas Yojna, is subjected to 9% CGST and SGST each post 01.01.2022? RULING- The services provided by applicant to RHB after 13.07.2022 onward until rate not changed it will attract a rate of 18% GST FULL […]
In re Glensky Spirits Pvt. Ltd (AAR Rajasthan) AAR observe that the question on which advance ruling is sought is vague in nature. Applicant is going for setting up a plant and without knowing the nature of construction categorically; it’s not possible to give ruling unless and until details are not provided. Applicant has not […]
CESTAT Delhi held that order of revoking the license of the Customs Broker is unreasonable and unjustified as there was no violation of Regulation 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018.
CESTAT Mumbai held that once the adjudication has taken place under section 11B of the Central Excise Act there cannot be recovery on claim of ‘erroneous refund’ under section 11A of the Central Excise Act.
