Hon’ble CESTAT Ahmedabad on the current issue observed that even though the reversal was not made under protest, the Appellant has the right to claim refund within one year as per Section 11B of Central Excise Act,1944 (CE Act). Noted, that the Appellant not filing the application under protest letter while reversing the credit refund cannot be rejected on this ground.
Applicant contended that 20% of the amount forfeited is on account of sale of land which is a transaction not liable to GST as per Schedule III of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) which provides that sale of land is an activity or transaction, which is treated as, neither supply of goods nor service under GST.
Sahil Enterprises Vs Union of India (Tripura High Court) In M/s Sahil Enterprises. v. Union of India. [IA No.1/2021 with WP(C) No.531/2021 dated September 14, 2021], M/s Sahil Enterprises (Petitioner) has filed the current application seeking interim relief for removing the provisional attachment which was ordered by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, […]
In BMG INFORMATICS PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA [Case No. WP(C)/3878/2021 dated September 02, 2021], BMG Informatics Pvt Ltd (the Petitioner) after submitting a claim for a refund under FORM-GST-RFD-02 under Section 54(3)(ii) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) received a Show-Cause Notice dated April 10, 2020 (SCN) rejecting the […]
Extended period of limitation can be invoked only when ‘suppression’ or ‘collusion’ is wilful with an intent to evade tax In M/s. SOTC Travels Services Pvt Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I [SERVICE TAX APPEAL No. 50046 of 2016 dated September 20, 2021] the current appeal has been filed challenging Order in Original […]
Kerala High Court Advocate Association Vs Assistant Commissioner (Kerala High Court) Kerala HC issued notice to Govt. in writ challenging GST on goods and services provided by Association to its members Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association (Petitioner) filed a Writ Petition challenging GST on goods and services provided by the Petitioner to its own members. […]
Writ Petitions having alternative remedy not to be entertained if no violation of fundamental rights, excess jurisdiction/ delegation In The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others v. M/s Commercial Steel Limited [Civil Appeal No 5121 of 2021 dated September 03, 2021], the current appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated March 04, 2020 […]
The issue relate to demand of service tax on remittance towards services on which service tax was payable as per the Import Rules and has been paid by the Appellant but it has not been accepted by the Department.
CESTAT, Ahmedabad held that the Product Recall Policy expenses is born for the purpose of security of the goods and for this reason the service falls under the definition of input services and is therefore, eligible for CENVAT Credit.
Sinochem India Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court) In Sinochem India Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (L) No. 13894 of 2021] and in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. The Union of India & Ors, [Writ Petition (L) No. 8163 of 2021] involve a common […]
