CESTAT Ahmedabad in the case of Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. v C.C.E. & ST held that payment of one-time premium under renting of immovable property services is not chargeable to Service Tax.
In re Magnetic Infotech Pvt Ltd. (GST AAAR Telangana) Exemption not available to sub-contractor on services provided to educational institutions on behalf of main contractor The AAAR, Telangana in the matter of M/s Magnetic Infotech Private Limited [Order-in-Appeal No. AAAR/13/2022 dated November 22, 2022] has ruled that the sub-contractor is not entitled to claim Goods […]
HC held that entertaining Writ Petition at the stage of notice would interrupt adjudication process and frustrate tax administration. Assessee has ample opportunity to agitate issues before assessing officer.
CESTAT ruled that CBEC does not have the power to modify the scope of an exemption notification that the Central Government has issued.
HC ruled in favor of assessee by directing department to process Input Tax Credit claim that were previously rejected solely on the ground of inadvertent error.
HC granted major relief to contractors by staying the coercive steps against the contractors and ordered the State GST department to abide by its circular, Finance Department vide Office memorandum No. FIN-CTI-TAX-0045-2017/38535/F dated December 10, 2018 to address the problems with works contracts brought on by the change from VAT to GST tax system
It is time that Government seriously considers protecting its legitimate interests by ensuring some mechanism to ensure that tax liability on capital gains is duly recovered from borrower whose property is sold, and when it is not possible to do so on account of borrower’s genuine financial difficulties, from person who receives proceeds of sale of such assets.
AAAR upheld the ruling passed by AAR of not providing the benefit of exemption under entry no. 3 of the Notification 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017 wherein the payment was made for medical insurance premium for employees, pensioners, and their family members.
AAAR set aside order of AAR for failure in giving a ruling on question of taxability under GST on services provided by assessee on the grounds that it involves determination of place of supply which is beyond its jurisdiction. Held that, the AAR was incorrect for failing to make a ruling on the matter. Further, remanded back the case to the AAR for fresh consideration.
HC ruled that Genpact India cannot be treated as an intermediary, and is therefore eligible for Goods and Services Tax (GST) refund.
