The article explains common GST audit objections relating to ITC, reverse charge liability, and turnover mismatches. It highlights that proper reconciliations, documentary evidence, and judicial precedents may help avoid demands and penalties.
The Allahabad High Court observed that criminal case delays are caused not only by judicial officers but also by inadequate infrastructure, police non-cooperation, and forensic deficiencies. The Court issued multiple reform directions while rejecting a bail plea.
The Delhi High Court held that frozen chicken supplied to the Indian Army was not exempt from GST because it was supplied in unit containers. The Court directed reimbursement of GST paid by the supplier along with interest for delayed payment.
The Telangana High Court refused to interfere with a GST demand order involving alleged misclassification of cargo transport services, holding that the petitioner should pursue statutory appellate remedies. The Court found no violation of natural justice.
Delhi High Court upheld the view that high-purity gold jewellery could not be absolutely confiscated merely because it fell within the category of primary gold. Redemption on payment of fine and duty was allowed.
Tribunal found that the assessee had paid applicable R&D cess on royalty and technical know-how fees and had maintained supporting records. Exemption equivalent to service tax liability was therefore allowed.
CESTAT held that sharing telecast rights of horse racing events with other clubs against downlinking charges amounted to commercial exploitation of events. Service tax demand for the post-2010 period was upheld.
The Delhi ITAT held that activities relating to environmental protection, farming awareness, and sustainability education qualify under the preservation of environment limb of Section 2(15). The Tribunal ruled that such activities are not hit by the restrictive proviso applicable to general public utility cases.
The Madras High Court directed GST authorities to keep proceedings on seigniorage fee and royalty demands in abeyance until the Supreme Court decides the issue. The Court, however, required deposit of 10% of the disputed tax as security.
The Gujarat High Court directed authorities not to pass any final order in a GST dispute concerning corporate guarantees during pendency of the writ petition. The case challenges Rule 28(2) and circulars prescribing 1% deemed valuation for GST purposes.
