Babu Khan Vs State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court) In Babu Khan v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. there were a total of 121 Writ Petitions filed by the Liquor Vendors seeking waivers on the annual guarantee fee and tax relief for the second wave time period of COVID-19. In the case, the Petitioners contended […]
In Directorate of Enforcement v. Raj Singh Gehlot [ECIR/14/HQ-STF/2019 dated September 10, 2021], Raj Singh Gehlot (the Applicant) moved a bail application for grant of regular bail but the bail plea was dismissed by Hon’ble Patiala House Court. In this case the Hon’ble Patiala House Court dismissed the bail plea of Applicant, the owner of […]
Universal Buildrise Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) M/S. Universal Buildrise Private Limited (Appellant) filed an appeal against Order dated September 30, 2019 of the Ld. CIT(A)-9, New Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-2017. The Appellant filed its return of income declaring loss and paid taxes on book profit under Minimum Alternate Tax […]
Jodhpur Bench held that mere time gap between withdrawals and deposits cannot be a sole basis for rejecting the explanation of the Appellant as there was no material that amount so withdrawn had been utilized somewhere else. The Court believed that the explanation by the Appellant was reasonable and therefore, directed that the addition so made must be deleted.
First issue is involved relates to the payment of service tax on reverse charge basis in respect of GTA services received by appellant. The appellant has paid the service tax as soon as it was pointed by the auditor and again in cash when it was pointed out that it has to be paid in cash. In these circumstances, CESTAT not find that there was any malafide on the part of the appellant. Therefore, benefit of section 80 should be extended for the appellant and penalty under section 76 and 78 are set aside. The appellant have already conceded that they are not contesting the payment of duty.
Single Bench Order w.r.t Exemption provided to contribution upto Rs. 7,500/- PM to RWA under challenge before DB In Union of India v. M/S TVH Lumbini Square Owners Association [W.A.Nos.2318 and 2321 of 2021 dated September 09, 2021], the current appeal has been filed against the Ld. Single Judge Bench ruling provided in M/S TVH […]
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.
