HC held that, seizure under Section 67 of CGST Act is limited to goods liable for confiscation or any documents, books or things which may be useful for or relevant to any proceedings and ‘cash’ does not fall within definition of ‘goods’
Under the Companies Act, 2013, the Odisha High Court rules that an assessee cannot claim a supplementary refund based on a fresh calculation after the processing of the original refund application. In Vedanta Ltd. vs. Union of India, the court states that when Input Tax Credit (ITC) is claimed for multiple units under a single GSTIN, the assessee cannot seek supplementary refund by treating each unit as a separate entity.
Prosecution case against petitioner is that he created fake firms for availment and passing of fake/ ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) to facilitate existing beneficiary firms.
HC permitted assessee to make necessary changes to its Form GSTR 3B returns for July, 2017 and March, 2018 and held that, allowing the assessee to make such changes, would not cause any prejudice to Revenue Department nor would it upset the chain of credit under GST
CESTAT Held that, installation of ‘thermal insulation’ is a covered under definition of Works Contract Service & therefore, Service Tax is not demandable.
HC quashed and set aside the orders blocking Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) of assessee without providing an opportunity of personal hearing.
All types of jaggery pre- packed and labelled are exigible to GST at 5% as per SI. No. 91A of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017
In re S.K. Swami & Company (GST AAR Karnataka) GST @ 18% leviable on works contract services to Indian Railways; 12% on works contract services involving predominantly earthwork The AAR, Karnataka in the matter of M/s S.K. Swami & Company [Advance Ruling No. KAR ADRG 05/2023 dated January 23, 2023] has ruled the rate of Goods […]
AAR ruled that the supply of telecommunication services to a local authority is a taxable service under Section 9(1) of Central Goods and Services Act, 2017
Respondent, by way of rebuttal evidence has failed to probablize its defence to disprove statutory presumption available in favour of Appellant. Such failure has proved charge leveled against Respondent for offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
