carbon credit is not even directly linked with the power generation and the income is received by sale of the excess carbon credits. Lastly, the Court inferred that the Tribunal had rightly held that it is a capital receipt and not business income.
The warehousing services rendered by the applicant to CCI do not fall under Entry 24B NN 21/2019 and hence are taxable at the rate of 9% under CGST and SGST eac
Maruti Suzuki is in appeal against the impugned order wherein cenvat credit on event management service has been denied on the ground that the same does not cover under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as input service.
If the Petitioner have claimed and received only the customs duty portion of the drawback and element of IGST (earlier Central Excise Duty and Service Tax) was not included in the drawback rate, granting of IGST refund would not result in double neutralization of input taxes. The Respondents have also never intended to deny a refund of IGST paid on export in cases where only custom components were claimed as drawbacks.
Held, the amendment of Section 140 of the CGST Act does not affect the right of Petitioner to claim transitional credit and it would be unnecessary to deal with the Constitutional challenge to it. Further, noted the Petitioner is at the liberty to apply for Transitional Credit subject to the further order from the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.7425-7428/2020 (supra).
Where the coaching services provider supplies services of coaching to students which also includes along with coaching, supply of goods/printed material/test papers, uniform, bags and other goods to students. Such supplies are not charged separately but a consolidated amount is charged, the major component of which is imparting of coaching. In such circumstances, whether such supply shall be considered, a supply of goods or a supply of services?
Autobahn Enterprises Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Mumbai) Service Tax not leviable on discounts offered by car manufacturers to their dealers for onward transmission to corporate customers Autobahn Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) was an authorized dealer of M/s Skoda Auto India Pvt Ltd. and in accordance with their agreements, the Appellant was […]
Applicant has sought an advance ruling on the issue whether he is entitled for GST Input Tax Credit (ITC) already claimed by him on the invoices raised by M/S. Gayatri Projects Ltd. for the period of January to March, 2020 for which M/S. Gayatri Projects Ltd. (Supplier) has belatedly paid the tax charged in respect of such supply to the Government.
Owners have vested the rights to develop the immovable property owned by them, into a residential apartment with the Applicant thereby, holding the contention of the Applicant that Para 2 will not be applicable and thus is unsustainable.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the current case while analyzing the validity of formula prescribed in Rule 89(5) observed that while the anomalies of the formula do continue to exist, an anomaly per se cannot invalidate a fiscal rule which has been framed in exercise of the power of delegated legislation.
