CESTAT held that Hotel accommodation service received by appellant is an eligible input service under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
AAR Haryana held that Recoveries On Account Of Notice Pay, Bond Forfeiture, Canteen Charges, ID Cards Replacement As Well As The Liquidated Damages & Forfeiture Of Earnest Money and Security Deposit Not Taxable Under GST.
Whether or not refund of IGST on exported goods will be allowed in the present petition after deduction of the drawback duty?
Held that since the audit proceedings under Section 65 of the CGST Act was already commenced by the …., it is but appropriate that the proceedings should be taken to the logical end by the …., and the proceedings in
HC held that the filing of a reply to the show-cause notice in form GST-DRC-06 is not mandatory under Section 73(9), 74(9) and 76(3) of CGST Act and reply so filed through post shall also be treated as valid.
High Court dismissed the petition stating that the terms of e-auction provided that any dispute is arbitrable and the Appellant is virtually seeking the enforcement of a contract through a writ petition for raising a claim for refund.
SC directed adjudicating authority to complete penalty proceedings on remand, at the earliest preferably within a period of six months from the date of this judgment as the penalty proceedings were reported to be pending pursuant to the remand order passed by the CESTAT.
HC held that, GST Notice which failed to mention allegations of fake invoices against assessee is not valid and warned department to strictly give proper training to officers.
CESTAT held that the assessing authority has not found any undeclared machines in the manufacturing premises or factory of the assessee and duty has been demanded based on assumptions and presumption, which is not permissible under the scheme of compounded levy on the product manufactured by the assessee. Therefore, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed by the CESTAT.
It will be in the best interest of Respondent Public Authority to explore the viability of introducing/updating a FAQs Section on their website wherein the most commonly sought issues/clarifications and/or respective orders/circulars/their jurisdictions and also their powers/roles can be easily identified and relevant information in that regard can be placed in the public domain in keeping with the letter and spirit of suo motu disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act.
