The West Bengal AAR ruled that laundry soap and toilet soap are separate products under GST classification. Laundry soap bars weighing less than 500 grams were held taxable at 18%.
ROC Mumbai held that repeated return of official notices proved non-maintenance of a registered office under Section 12(1) of the Companies Act. The company and its directors were penalized under Section 12(8) despite claims of temporary closure and health-related disruptions.
The ROC held that incorrect disclosure in Form AOC-4 amounted to violation of Rule 8(3) of the Companies Rules. Even inadvertent filing mistakes in digitally signed forms can lead to penalties under Section 450.
ROC Mumbai penalized a director for possessing two Director Identification Numbers in contravention of Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013. The authority held that even inadvertent allotment of duplicate DIN attracts penalty under Section 159.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after finding that the assessee had no knowledge of the assessment proceedings due to missed email notices. The assessment was restored for de novo adjudication.
GSTAT closed the proceedings after noting that the complainant had unconditionally withdrawn the complaint and entered into a settlement with the developer. The Tribunal also held that the matter had already been conclusively adjudicated earlier.
The Tribunal ruled that workload and assessment proceedings alone cannot justify extraordinary delay in filing an appeal. The Revenues appeal was dismissed as time-barred due to lack of convincing explanation.
The article analyses how cryptocurrencies function through decentralized blockchain systems and examines the risks arising from limited regulation in India. It also explains taxation provisions applicable to Virtual Digital Assets.
When an educational society was found to be substantially engaged in genuine charitable activities, its exemption could not be denied under Section 13(1)(b) simply because a few specific expenditures happened to benefit individuals from a particular religious community.
The Tribunal ruled that pursuing a rectification remedy before filing an appeal constituted sufficient cause for delay. The CIT(A)s dismissal of the appeal on limitation was therefore set aside.
