Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of Goyal & Co Construction, stating service tax demand cannot be confirmed without mentioning it in the show cause notice.
CESTAT ruling discusses whether clearance of iron and steel scrap from imported brass can be treated as removal of inputs under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of Vikram Plasticizers, granting them customs duty exemption for their chemically modified HDPE, as it maintains its character.
Read about the extension of the due date for mandatory declaration of additional qualifiers in import/export declarations for certain products.
In the case of Welspun Corp Ltd vs. C.C.-Mundra, CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that a minor increase or decrease in weight compared to import invoices, calculated based on theoretical weight, is allowable. The tribunal cited a previous judgment in favor of the appellant and set aside the demand for enhanced valuation.
In a significant ruling, ITAT Ahmedabad relieves an assessee from penalties due to accountant’s mistake. Full review of Dharmendrakumar B Mehta Vs ITO case here.
Delhi High Court overturns GST refund claim rejection in a landmark case, highlighting the necessity for reasons in Form GST-RFD-08. Read the full case analysis here.
Read an insightful analysis of the Madras High Court’s decision to confirm a penalty on goods transmitted without proper invoice and transport documents.
Supreme Court’s definitive judgement includes toughened glass under the ambit of “glass and glassware” according to the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1998.
ITAT Jaipur held that the difference in the closing stock is emanating from the difference in the working for the preceding years and that such difference cannot be attributed for the year under consideration. Accordingly, order not erroneous and jurisdiction of section 263 not invocable.
