The challenge concerns provisions inserted into the Haryana GST Act and a subsequent executive order dealing with collection of entry tax. The Court found that the matter raises important questions regarding legislative competence.
The Tribunal found no merit in Customs’ objections relating to classification, labelling and port restrictions for the purpose of provisional release. The appeal was dismissed and release of the goods was ordered.
The Kerala High Court upheld the ITAT’s decision that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant year. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.
The Court found the underlying consolidated notice legally defective and consequently quashed the corresponding GST order while preserving the department’s right to initiate fresh action.
The Tribunal held that a residential unit does not lose its residential nature merely because it is located within a building housing a nursing home. Proportionate exemption under Section 54F was therefore allowed.
Tribunal held that reassessment beyond three years was not permissible where alleged escaped income was only ₹38 lakh. Since statutory threshold of ₹50 lakh was not met, reassessment was quashed.
CESTAT Bangalore held that Air Velocity 2700 was correctly classified under CTH 8517 6260 after examining its functional characteristics. The Tribunal found that its role in receiving, synchronizing, and routing signals supported the importer’s classification.
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs Abhishek Mundhra (CESTAT Kolkata) The Revenue challenged an Order-in-Appeal that had set aside the confiscation of 15 kg of gold bangles/strips and 1,754.29 grams of silver granules, as well as penalties imposed on various noticees. The case originated from a DRI operation based on intelligence alleging that gold smuggled from […]
The Delhi High Court observed that rejection of a GST refund claim after repeated judicial directions to grant the refund may amount to contempt. The Court granted time to the department to file its response before further consideration.
The Kerala High Court held that the non obstante clause in Section 16(5) prevails over the time limit prescribed under Section 16(4) for claiming ITC. The Court quashed the denial order and directed reconsideration of the taxpayer’s claim.
