CESTAT held that contract involving both supply of material and labour is a ‘Works Contract Service’ which was not taxable prior to June 1, 2007.
Punjab & Haryana HC in Samyak Metals Pvt Ltd Vs UOI mandates a refund along with interest on an amount recovered illegally by GST Department.
HC held that GST authorities have power to conduct search and seizure against assessee operating in SEZ and further applied a cost on assessee for abusing due process of law.
ITAT held that income of the assessee which is already taxed in one head cannot be taxed under any other head by the Revenue Department.
ITAT, Ahmedabad in Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. ADIT held that oil wells are plant and machinery, and accordingly, higher depreciation would be allowed
Tripura High Court declared that the assessee has the right to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) for taxable works contract services utilized in the construction of immovable property. Discover the significance of this ruling and its implications for taxpayers in availing ITC for construction-related services.
Calcutta HC in J. L. Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax held that cash-credit facility is not a debt, thus cannot be attached through provisional attachment order.
CESTAT held that if a service tax refund request coincides with a period in which a demand has been established, taxpayer will only be eligible for a refund if demand is overturned.
CESTAT ruled that appellant is entitled to offset underpaid service tax against excess tax paid in subsequent months/quarters, in accordance with Rule 6 (4A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994.
Supreme Court’s ruling in Sheetal Mittal vs. State of Rajasthan, where anticipatory bail was denied due to fabricated GST number and firm name
