AAR, West Bengal, in case of Mindrill Systems and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ruled that, Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be claimed on construction of immovable property which is capitalised in books of account.
Explore the AAR ruling on GST applicability for services related to loading and unloading of imported unprocessed pulses, in the case of Sona Ship Management Pvt Ltd.
GST AAR West Bengal classifies KSB Limited’s supply of pumps with installation for sewerage treatment as works contract service, taxable at 12% under GST when supplied to local authority.
In Earthmark Traders v. Joint Commissioner, State Tax ,Calcutta High Court sets aside order passed by Appellate Authority, emphasizing that authority cannot go beyond the allegations made in Show Cause Notice. Learn about facts, issue, held, and implications of this significant decision.
Read judgment of Sunil Enterprises vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax by Allahabad High Court. Court overturned Adjudicating Authority’s order, highlighting violation of natural justice principles when an order is passed prematurely.
In a significant ruling, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, in the case of Perfect Enterprise v. State of West Bengal [W.P.A. No. 532 of 2023 dated June 15, 2023], overturned a penalty order issued by the Adjudicating Authority and subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authority. The court held that no penalty should be imposed on a bonafide assessee if the e-way bill expires during the transportation of goods due to a national holiday.
HC held that if the deposit of tax had been already made and the Appellate Tribunal is not yet constituted then the rest of the demand shall remain stayed.
Rajasthan High Court in case of M/s B.C. Power Controls Ltd. v. Union of India held that refund application for IGST cannot be indefinitely delayed based on pendency of proceedings. Get full details and analysis here.
CESTAT set aside the order demanding excise duty and held that the buyer who has paid a valuable consideration could not be proceeded upon by taking the aid of a larger period of limitation as per Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 unless it is proved that the buyer was also involved in fraud.
HC held that in case where assessee has disputes all the facts and allegation stated in the show cause notice the requirement of issuance of DRC-01A would be mere formality however, if issuance of DRC-01A would have serviced any benefit to the assessee, it would have been imperative for the court to enforce such notice on the Revenue Authorities.
