AAR held that, Input Tax Credit (ITC) can be availed on GST charged by contractor supplying service of works contract to extent of machine foundation as per Section 17(5)(c) of CGST Act.
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India & Ors. v. Aap and Company [Civil Appeal No(s). 5978/2021 dated December 10, 2021] reversed the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, ruling that FORM GSTR-3B is not a return under Section 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
HC Held that, anticipatory bail is a statutory right, and detention in judicial custody would affect the assessee’s business. Further, allowed the bail application, since the custodial interrogation is neither warranted nor provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act., 2017
HC directed the Income-Tax Department to allow tax deducted at source (TDS) credit to the assessee, even if the same is not deposited by the employer. Further held that, where tax has been deducted by an employer but not paid to the Central Government, the Department should resort to Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) to recover TDS from the employer.
AAR held that, contributions from club members, recovered for spending on weekly meetings, other petty administrative expenses amounts to ‘supply’ and the activity of collecting contributions and spending towards meeting and administrative expenditures only, is business under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
SC held that a person cannot be prosecuted and punished merely because of their status or position as a director, manager, secretary or any other officer in a company unless the offence in question was committed with their consent or connivance or is attributable to any neglect on their part.
AAR held that, assessee providing boarding and lodging facilities and raising 2 separate invoices, towards hostel rent and towards hostel food respectively would neither be covered under composite supply nor mixed supply. Further, the declared tariff of a unit of accommodation service below INR 1000/- per day is exempted.
CESTAT held that registration with the department is not a prerequisite to claim Service tax refund. Further, directed that the assessee is entitled to get the refunds accordingly along with applicable interest.
HC set aside the orders rejecting refund application, solely on the ground that reasons for rejection of refund have not been recorded in writing in accordance with Rule 92 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules) and remanded back the matter to Revenue Department for reconsideration and directed to complete the exercise expeditiously.
ITAT Directed AO to delete addition on account of capitalisation of royalty expenses by holding it to be revenue in nature as the assessee did not acquire any new asset or any new enduring benefit from it.
