Madras HC directs the GST Department to de-freeze N.S. Rathinam And Sons PVT Ltd’s bank account after the first installment of tax is paid.
Tribunal held that once on a particular issue the show cause notice has been issued, on the same issue for the subsequent period no extended period can be invoked as demand for the extended period do not sustain being time bar.
Delhi High Court rules that DGGI’s communication to freeze bank accounts without proper authorization is invalid. Details and analysis of M/s. Redamancy World case.
CESTAT Chandigarh ruling in M/s Kumar Builders v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax clarifies that transporting and disposing of ash is not equivalent to cleaning services. Details and analysis.
HC set aside demand raised on ground that assessee instead of passing ITC through Form GST ITC-02 transferred ITC through Form GSTR-3B and held that the stand of Revenue Department was not correct since Form ITC-02 was not live on common portal.
Explore Andhra Pradesh High Court’s analysis of sufficient cause for delay in filing a GST appeal and the interpretation of Section 107(4) of CGST Act.
CESTAT Chennai rules that the refund of unutilised Cenvat Credit for a sold factory is not allowable. Alfred Berg & Co. Vs Commissioner of GST & CE explained.
In a legal battle, Arhaan Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Solutions face GST issues. Learn about the responsibility of purchasers in verifying seller’s GST registration.
HC set aside demand raised by Revenue Department on the ground that rectification order under section 161 of CGST Act was passed without giving opportunity of being heard to assessee.
CESTAT held that effluent does not qualify to be a ‘good’ as per Sales of Goods Act, 1930 and as per definition of GTA only transportation of ‘goods’ is covered under GTA service. Thus, transportation of effluent by GTA is out from ambit of service tax.
