Examining the present case on the anvil of aforesaid case law, we find that the notice in this also is an omnibus show-cause notice as it does not strike off/delete the inappropriate/irrelevant/not applicable portion. Such a generic notice betrays a non-application of mind. Hence, the penalty levied pursuant to such a notice is not legally sustainable in law.
Current appeal has been filed discussing the taxability of ‘Relays’, which is used as a part of Railway Signalling System. Westinghouse Saxby Farmer Ltd (Appellant) has come in the Court aggrieved by the dismissal of appeal challenging the same by the Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata vide order dated March 26, 2008.
Goods that are classifiable as used personal and household effect falls under Rule 138 (14) (a) of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and are exempted from the requirement of e-way bill.
It was categorically stated that when the TDS amount has been borne by the assessee and only the consideration for the services as agreed upon by the parties has been paid to the service provider, the TDS amount cannot be included in the taxable value for determining the Service Tax liability
Grandhe Construction Private Limited Vs Government of Tamilnadu (Madras High Court) The Madras High Court vide an order returnable on September 06, 2021 issued a Non-Bailable warrant against Grandhe Construction Private Limited (Petitioner No. 1) and Sri Murugan Earth Movers (Petitioner No. 2) in lieu of their Writ Petitions Nos. 26205 to 26207 of 2008. […]
In FR TRADE LINKS v. STATE TAX OFFICER [WP(C) NO. 28917 OF 2020 dated August 05, 2021], FR Trade Links (Petitioner) filed Writ Petition at the Hon’ble Kerala High Court challenging the orders cancelling his certificate of registration under the CGST/SGST Act and rejection of his application for revocation of cancellation of registration certificate. The […]
The issue before Delhi High Court is whether the entire amount frozen in accounts with National West Minister Bank London is the case property or alleged proceeds of the crime and may be liable for confiscation in case the Petitioner’s are convicted and thus cannot be utilized for fulfilling the tax demands due against the Petitioners.
Conduct of the assessee in complying with 12 items out of 16 items as called for by the TPO can be considered to be reasonable and the act cannot be held to be an unreasonable act, but can be considered as a reasonable act of an organization acting with prudence under normal circumstances without negligence or inaction or want of bonafides.
The Hon’ble Supreme in the current matter observed that there was indeed a creation of a secured debt in favour of the State Bank of India which was later transferred to the Respondent. Noted, the Respondent cannot be prevented from exercising its rights as a secured creditor on the pretext that there was a debt to the Excise Government arising from a confiscation order.
Madurai Kamaraj University Vs Joint Commissioner (Madras High Court) In Madurai Kamaraj University v. Joint Commissioner GST and Central Excise [W.P.(MD) No.20502 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD) No.17152 of 2019 dated August 16, 2021], Madurai Kamaraj University (the Petitioner) has sought for a writ of Certiorari for quashing of the records on the file of Joint […]
