AAR held that Indian company is liable to pay GST on reverse charge basis for amount paid as interest to its holding foreign company on late payment of invoices of imported goods, as the same is to be included value of supply as per Section 15(2)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017
Tata Motors Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. (Appellant) filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), computing set-off of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit under Section 115JAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the IT Act) excluding surcharge and cess resulting in short grant of MAT credit […]
The Hon’ble Bombay HC in Dharmendra M. Jani v. Union of India [W.P. No. 2031 of 2018 dated June 09, 2021] Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that Section 13(8)(b) of the Integrated Goods and Services Act, 2017 (IGST Act) is ultra vires of Articles 14, 19, 245, 246, 246A, 269A and 286 of the Constitution of India (Constitution) and also […]
Yasho Industries Limited Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) DGGI Officers entitled to issue summons under Section 70 of CGST Act An inquiry was initiated and summons were issued against the assessee to give evidence and produce the documents in connection with the inquiry initiated for alleged incorrect IGST refunds. This petition was filed […]
Assessable person cannot be denied access to vital piece of evidence which can prove him innocent in the eyes of law by the department. Further, since this was not done, adverse inference must be necessarily drawn against the Respondent.
NFAC should follow and apply the decision of jurisdictional High Court having jurisdiction over Assessing Officer. Any relief should not be refused to assessee by NFAC merely because there was some conflicting decision of non-jurisdictional High Court.
HC set aside the order rejecting the claim of assessee that disentitled assessee from claiming MEIS Scheme benefits and held that, assessee will be entitled for such benefits and shipping bills reveal a clear intention of the assessee to avail benefit under MEIS Scheme and directs Revenue Department to grant consequential benefits within 8 weeks.
Cases involving confiscation/ redemption fine are within the ambit of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS, 2019) The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in M/S Synpol Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [R/Special Civil Application No. 21744 of 2019 dated February 27, 2020] held that taxpayers whose case involves confiscation and redemption […]
Tripura High Court held that abatement of duty can’t be withheld solely on ground that Superintendent did not record that sealing was done in such a manner that machine could not be operated as it was not within the control of the Appellant in what manner the Superintendent passed an order after sealing the machine.
AAR held that, that mere acceptance of joint custody of goods without rights, privileges of ownership of goods does not amount to supply.
