Reversal of ITC under Section 17(5)(h) of CGST Act in case of loss of input which is inherent to manufacturing loss is misconceived, as such loss is not contemplated or covered by situations adumbrated under Section 17(5)(h) of the CGST Act.
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (Supreme Court) SC holds that Insurance Companies are liable to pay compensation even if the vehicle is under contact and under control of State Transport Corporation and the insurance policy has been purchased by its actual owner It is common knowledge that […]
The Hon’ble Tripura High Court in Shri Sentu Dey v. State of Tripura [Criminal Petition No. 14/2021 dated May 28, 2021] quashed the order passed for police investigation by the Judicial Magistrate in a matter of alleged GST offence. Held that, once the cognizance of offences alleged in the complaint has been taken by the […]
Naresh Kumar Goyal Vs National Faceless Assessment Center & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Naresh Kumar Goyal (Petitioner) challenged the show cause notice and the draft assessment order both dated April 19, 2021, penalty notice dated May 20, 2021 (Notices) and the assessment order dated May 20, 2021 (Impugned Order) passed by the Department. The Petitioner […]
GST : Where Charitable Trust was running a medical store, even though Charitable Trust was giving medicines to customers at a lower rate with no profit, sale of medicine by Trust would be a taxable supply of goods; aggregate turnover exceeding threshold limit, Trust would have to obtain registration
HC declined to interfere in a matter and dismissed the petition of the assessee seeking rectification of the Form GSTR-1 for the period of January 2018 to March 2018, on the ground that the statute has provided a period of limitation for seeking rectification and held that the Court cannot condone the limitation period provided for rectification of GSTR-1 Form
Assessment or re-assessment made in pursuance to Section 153A of the IT Act, is not a de novo assessment and therefore, it was not open to the Appellant to claim and be allowed deduction or allowance of expenditure which it had not claimed in the original assessment proceedings which in the case of the Appellant stood completed.
The Hon’ble High Court, Madras noted that the summon were issued to the Petitioner instead of the counsel for the Petitioner (in whose name vakalatnama was given). Thus, there is a possibility that the Petitioner would not have informed about the summons to their counsel regarding the personal hearing and the same resulted in passing of the Impugned order without hearing the learned counsel of the Petitioner.
AAR, Maharashtra has held that a liaison office of the DCCI to be an ‘intermediary’ which is providing services. Further held that, the liaison office cannot be considered as non-profit making organization, and the activities undertaken are covered under the scope of ‘Commerce’, ‘Business’ and ‘Supply’.
HC has granted stay on Recovery Order passed by the Revenue Department, denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the Company due to mis-match in two return forms i.e. Form GSTR-2A and Form GSTR-3B, on a condition of deposit of 5% of the demand by the Company.
