CESTAT’s decision clarifies that since the rent received by individual co-owners is below the specified threshold, there is no basis for imposing service tax on these amounts.
In Kia Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Madhya Pradesh, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ, affirming GST on inter-state transport of demo vehicles between distinct persons, emphasizing compliance with CGST Act and Rules.
In the case of M/s. SHIDO Pharma v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), the Madras High Court quashed the order passed without providing an opportunity of hearing and directed the Revenue Department to conduct afresh proceedings.
The court deemed the show cause notice invalid as it failed to include essential details such as the date, time, and venue of the personal hearing
ITAT upheld the decision of the Commissioner, who had correctly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had added the differential margin to the assessee’s income based solely on a comparison between industry gross margin and the assessee’s gross margin, without conducting a thorough analysis of the assessee’s business strategy.
Calcutta High Court, in the case of M/s. Gargo Traders v. The Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, held that a recipient of goods/services cannot be denied input tax credit (ITC) if the supplier becomes non-existent or their registration is retrospectively cancelled. The court directed the Revenue Department to consider the documents provided by the assessee to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction.
Delhi High Court rules in case of in Fayiz Nangaparambil Vs Union of India & Anr, emphasizing the importance of specific allegations in a Show Cause Notice for GST registration suspension.
Madras High Court rejected the writ filed by the petitioner and instructed the assessee to pursue an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The High Court further directed the Appellate Authority to expedite the proceedings and resolve the case promptly.
CESTAT, Mumbai granted a refund claim for service tax to a real estate developer on behalf of an unregistered customer. The customer had paid the service tax along with an advance payment but, due to certain circumstances, the real estate purchase contract was subsequently cancelled.
CESTAT held that contract involving both supply of material and labour is a ‘Works Contract Service’ which was not taxable prior to June 1, 2007.
