HC court pointed out the baselessness of revenue’s claim that petitioner was not owner, given that the e-way bills, which are legally recognized as documents of title to the goods, were accompanying the goods in transit.
HC held that loan facility availed by a credit card holder, where being a credit card holder is a condition for eligibility, is not considered a credit card service. Instead, it is treated as a standard loan which is exempt under GST. Directed the bank to refund the GST collected from the assessee.
HC held that refund application cannot be rejected without giving a proper reason and stated that Revenue department may issue a fresh notice, clearly setting out reasons for proposing to reject refund claim and assessee file a response in Form RFD-09, within prescribed period.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules no service tax leviable on VAT-subjected vehicle sales, in Jivan Jyot Motors Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST.
Delve into the case of Neeraj Sharma vs Commissioner of Customs where CESTAT ruled a secondary adjudication void ab initio due to pre-existing adjudication.
AAR ruled that supply of services to assessee to its own joint venture would attract GST as per Notification No. 11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017 since, assessee and joint venture are 2 different ‘person’ for taxation laws.
CESTAT set aside the order demanding service tax on rental property and held that, income received from rent by assessee is not subject to levy of service tax.
HC set aside the order passed by Gujarat High Court and held that power to arrest a person by an empowered authority under GST Act may be termed as statutory in character and ordinarily high courts should not interfere with exercise of such power under writ jurisdiction.
High Court of Andhra Pradesh confirms the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of the APGST and CGST Act, 2017, regarding Input Tax Credit. Learn about the court’s rulings on key questions.
Supreme Court in Paschimachal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Raman Ispat Private Limited held that Section 238 of IBC overrides provisions of Electricity Act, 2003.
