CESTAT, remanded order passed by Adjudicating Authority and held that denial of cross-examination of witnesses is violative of principles of natural justice.
HC ordered the Revenue department to release assessee’s refund claim with interest. The court held that Revenue cannot withhold refund solely because it plans to appeal to GST tribunal, especially when tribunal is not yet constituted.
CESTAT held that where the differential duty paid by the assessee is available as CENVAT credit to the Assessee’s sister concern then it is a revenue-neutral situation. Thus, as duty was not actually payable, the payment of interest does not arise in the case of revenue neutral situation.
Karnataka High Court in Sri Chandrashekaraiah v. State of Karnataka issued guidelines for determining discrepancies arising on tax calculation for Pre-GST works Contracts.
HC held that Additional Commissioner is right in rejecting time-barred appeal as section 107 of CGST Act has an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded application of Limitation Act, 1963.
Dive into the case of Jyote Motors Bengal Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director, DGGI, where the Calcutta High Court adjudicates on the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules on the Rajesh Mangal vs C.C.E. & S.T. case, affirming the validity of an excise duty demand but reducing the penalty under Rule 26. Read about the implications and insights from this ruling.
Calcutta High Court, in the case of Liakhat Ali Mallick v. State of West Bengal, set aside the order requiring the assessee to make a pre-deposit of 20% of the interest liability. Gain insights into the ruling and its implications for GST cases.
Get insights into the recent CESTAT decision on service tax refund for services consumed outside India. Explore the case of M/s. Aegis Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Surat-I, where the tribunal ruled that services consumed abroad are beyond the scope of service tax, warranting a refund of erroneously paid taxes.
CESTAT overturned the order that had previously confirmed the demand on expenses such as deconsolidation charges, transportation charges, and DO charges. These expenses were initially collected by the assessee from their clients and then paid to the service provider.
