Explore GST implications for Orient Cement Limited concerning gold coins and white goods issued to dealers upon achieving certain targets under CGST Act, 2017.
Mere collection of tax by the selling dealer is not sufficient; the tax must be duly paid to the government. The burden of proof lies with the purchasing dealer to substantiate that the tax collected has indeed been paid to the government by the supplier.
Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax & Ors Vs Safari Retreats Private Limited & Ors (Supreme Court of India) The Supreme Court of India heard the case Chief Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax & Ors. v. M/s. Safari Retreats Private Limited & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 2948/202] on August 17, 2023. The […]
HC set aside order passed by Assistant Commissioner and held that revenue officers are required to follow principles of judicial discipline and accordingly are bound by decisions of Appellate Authority.
Read detailed analysis of GST Advance Ruling by Uttar Pradesh AAR on appropriate HSN code for foam cup pads, issued to Maavisa Fom CUP Private Limited.
Read about the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s verdict in the case of M/s Parsvnath Traders v. Principal Commissioner, CGST, which ruled that deposited GST amounts collected during search proceedings should be refunded along with interest.
Rama Shanker Modi Vs Assistant Commissioner (Calcutta High Court) Appellant Authority cannot reject appeal merely on the ground that order copy was not furnished physically The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Rama Shanker Modi v the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Services tax and Central Excise [WPA 15639 of 2023 dated July 20, 2023] set […]
Explore the analysis of the case Satya Megha Ispat Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise by CESTAT Kolkata regarding inclusion of transportation charges in assessable value. Understand the implications of FOR contracts and recent CBEC circulars.
CESTAT set aside impugned order and held that the assessee is not receiving penal interest and bouncing charges as a consideration for tolerating an act. Thus, service tax cannot be demanded.
Analysis of the CESTAT Kolkata case involving excise duty demand based on differences between balance sheet and ER-1 returns, highlighting the need for substantial evidence.
