High Court held that compensation received for termination of trademark rights in AY 1997-98 was a capital receipt. Since Section 28(va) was inserted prospectively from 01.04.2003, it could not apply to relevant year.
The High Court ruled that mud engineering services and related chemicals supplied under a drilling contract are naturally bundled and constitute a composite supply under GST. Separate invoicing does not alter the integrated nature of the contract.
Relying on the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5), the Court quashed orders reversing ITC as time-barred. The Department was restrained from proceeding on limitation grounds.
The Tribunal confirmed demand under Section 73(2), citing the Managing Director’s admission and failure to register for manpower services. Cum-tax valuation was allowed for recalculation of liability.
The Tribunal upheld penalty for non-filing of return under Explanation 3 but ruled that computation must reduce TDS and self-assessment tax paid before notice. Penalty was reduced from Rs. 8.56 lakh to Rs. 85,992.
ITAT Amritsar upheld rejection of 12AB registration after finding that only ₹2.51 lakhs out of ₹40 lakhs received was spent on charitable activities. The Tribunal held that minimal charity expenditure and dominant non-charitable spending justified denial of registration.
The High Court permitted the assessee to file an appeal beyond limitation upon depositing 50% of disputed tax in two instalments. Non-compliance would permit recovery proceedings.
The Tribunal held that Notification 1/2016-ST retrospectively expands “specified services,” making head-office services used for export eligible for refund. Rejections based on pre-amendment interpretation were set aside with limited remand for verification.
CESTAT Chennai set aside a ₹92 lakh customs demand on imported natural rubber latex, holding the show cause notice was issued beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal ruled that without proof of wilful misstatement, extended limitation cannot apply.
The High Court set aside the discharge of a company director in proceedings under Section 276B, holding that the Trial Court’s finding was common and already overturned for the Managing Director. The matter was remitted, granting liberty to contest involvement in day-to-day affairs.
