Stay informed on recent Goods and Services Tax (GST) clarifications by CBIC! Explore Circulars 192 to 199 issued on 17th July 2023, covering crucial topics like interest under section 50(3), ITC differences, TCS liability, warranty replacement, taxability of shares, refunds, e-invoice, and ‘cross charge’ for distinct persons. Ensure compliance and stay ahead in the evolving GST landscape
In the case of Vikash Marda Vs Union Of India, the Calcutta High Court instructs CIT(A) to expedite pending appeals concerning assessments made under the Black Money Act.
Held that the goods were brought in the factory premises without having proper invoices/documents with intent to clear them clandestinely. Accordingly, confiscation and the redemption fine as well as the penalty imposed u/s. 11 AC of Central Excise Act read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is absolutely justified.
In a recent case, Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs C.c.e. Jaipur, the Rajasthan High Court has decided that welding electrodes used for maintenance and repair are inputs and not part of the manufacturing process.
ITAT Mumbai held that capital gain tax inadvertently paid by the wife needs to be refunded with interest and the same needs to be recovered from the assessee as the same transaction cannot be charged to tax twice.
Meghalaya High Court held that extended period of limitation as per proviso to section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 not invocable as there was no element of deceit or intention on the part of the assessee to evade duty.
Detailed analysis of the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling on the Jindal Fibres Vs C.C.-Kandla case, regarding penalties for misdeclared goods under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. Understand the implications for companies operating within SEZs.
CESTAT Chennai held that exemption of Basic Customs Duty under notification no. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 read with notification no. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 available as there is no violation of conditions. Further, demand proposed on misconception of facts and law is unjustified.
Held that as a party to the joint-venture, obligations and responsibilities discharged by co-venturer cannot be brought under service tax levy. Accordingly, demand of service tax set aside.
Delhi High Court held that amount received from subscription of e-journals cannot be treated as royalty as right in respect of copyright to the concerned subscribers not granted. Hence, the same is not taxable in India.
