SPNN Business Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (GST) (Delhi High Court) Hon’ble Delhi High Court directed the Revenue to permit the petitioner company to collect a sum of Rs. 2 crores from bank accounts provisionally attached by the GST Dept, to pay salaries of employees. Facts: The Commissioner of Central Tax (GST), […]
Applicant has sought a clarification on Goods and Services Tax (GST) applicability on the contract of supplying Non- Air Conditioned (Non-AC) Buses and whether exemption is available for stated service under SI No. 15 Heading 9964 of Notification No. 12/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017 (Services Exemption Notification) is applicable in the case.
Online Cargo Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT upheld validity of Order passed after 90 days under regulation 17(7) of CBLR, 2018 In the case of M/S Online Cargo v. Commissioner of Customs [CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51120 OF 2020], the Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the CESTAT) passed an interim order […]
Geetaben Dineshchandra Gupta Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) Geetaben Dinesh chandra Gupta (Petitioner) has filed the current petition challenging the notice dated March 23, 2019 which proposed the reopening of assessment of the Petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the IT Act). The Petitioner contended that even after the petitioner disclosed […]
The applicant is providing hostel on the rent to various students where fees charged per student per day per room is much less than Rs. 1000/- per day per person. Therefore, considering the provisions of notification Entry No. 14, and clarification given by CBIC in circular No. 32/06/2018-GST dated 12th February 2018, it is held that, the applicant’s activity is satisfying the conditions of Entry Sr.no. 14 of said Notification and hence would be exempt from taxes.
Other Charges are different from the service of construction of residential flats. It cannot be said to be naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other. The amount and consideration is separately for different services. Therefore, the Other Charges are not covered under Composite Supply of Services
The Petitioner contended some of the directions issued by the Respondent are bad in law because the Respondent has delegated upon a special auditor the work which he himself was required to do thereby is in the nature of investigation. Such directions cannot be segregated from the other directions and therefore submitted that the entire order containing the directions be quashed and set aside.
Revenue is precluded from invoking section 9(2) (g) of the DVAT Act to deny ITC to a purchasing dealer who has bona fidely entered into a purchase transaction with a registered selling dealer who had issued a tax invoice reflecting the Taxpayer Identification Number
The Petitioner is an assignee of right, title and interest of the credit facilities to Borrower which is now in liquidation and the Petitioner has a secured and a prior charge over the attached properties of the Borrower. The Petitioner, due to the prior charge, has been aggrieved by the order of the Respondent which is seeking Income Tax dues from the Borrower.
Appellant contended that accumulated credits of Cesses were not transitioned into GST regime due to specific restriction under Section 140(1) of CGST Act. Appellant therefore had to resort to the option of refund under existing law to avoid lapsing of credit.
