The Tribunal held that exemption notifications for Education Cess and SHEC apply only to Clean Energy Cess and not to CVD on imported coal. The case was remanded only to verify whether any cess was wrongly levied on CEC.
The tribunal held that TDS paid by the service recipient over and above the contract value cannot be included in the taxable value for service tax. Only the amount charged in the invoice forms the basis for service tax liability.
ITAT Mumbai held that long-term capital gains from share sales cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit when the assessee provides contract notes, demat records, and bank statements proving the transactions.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s non-appearance before the appellate authority was linked to serious ailments. It directed filing of an appeal before the Tribunal within six weeks.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court order concerning reassessment notices. It held that no ground existed under Article 136 to intervene, leaving the assessee to pursue remedies before the Assessing Officer.
The court declined to interfere with notices issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 because the petition was filed after more than one and a half years. It held that the assessee should appear before the Assessing Officer and present its submissions.
The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a GST demand, noting that the statutory appellate remedy was still available. The Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal subject to a 10% pre-deposit.
The Supreme Court granted four weeks to explore settlement in a dispute arising from High Court directions requiring timely payment of panel counsel bills by the Income Tax Department.
The court declined to modify earlier directions requiring prompt payment of counsel bills, holding that procedural checks cannot justify delays and interest must be paid for late payments.
The Court held that seizure of ₹1 crore in cash during GST searches was unlawful because authorities failed to record “reason to believe” as required under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act.
