HC held that benefit under SVLDR Scheme could not be denied on the ground that the quantification required to be done under SVLDR Scheme is actually self-assessment done during duration of Audit.
In the instant case, the view of the Authority to reject the credit on the ground of ‘no nexus’ could have been done only by taking recourse to Rule 14 of CCR. In the present case, since the Authority has rejected the credit solely on the ground of ‘no nexus’ which legally does not sustain.
AAR held that, a walltop computer is neither a micro-computer nor a large computer and to be classified as an automatic data processing unit covered under Customs Tariff heading 8471 41 90.
ITAT held that in no case entire sales amount can be treated as income and only profit embedded should be treated as income for computation of income under Income Tax Act, 1961
Calcutta High Court in the case of Maxxcab Wires & Cables Pvt Ltd & Anr vs State Tax Officer held that the Non-speaking Order under Goods and Services Tax is not valid.
Gujarat High Court in case of Shree Govind Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat held that mere expiry of e-way bill during transit of vehicle cannot be a valid ground for detention and seizure.
CESTAT held that custom brokers are not responsible for overseeing correctness of documents provided by client issued by government authorities for verification of exporters as per Regulation.
Shree Constructions (GST AAR Telangana)18% GST is payable on works contract service of constructing warehouse and cold storage godown for Govt. entity which will be rented out
As per the explanation to Section 17, Plant and Machinery does not include a pipeline laid outside the factory premises. As a consequence, the ITC of goods and services used for construction of a pipeline laid outside the factory premises is not available in terms of Section 17(5) (c) and 17(5) (d) of the GST Act.
Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX dated July 1, 2002, issued by CBEC clarifying the doubts regarding Valuation Rules with respect to goods when sold partly to related persons and partly to independent buyers, is not violative of Central Excise Act 1994 and Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
