Explore Andhra Pradesh High Court’s analysis of sufficient cause for delay in filing a GST appeal and the interpretation of Section 107(4) of CGST Act.
CESTAT Chennai rules that the refund of unutilised Cenvat Credit for a sold factory is not allowable. Alfred Berg & Co. Vs Commissioner of GST & CE explained.
In a legal battle, Arhaan Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Solutions face GST issues. Learn about the responsibility of purchasers in verifying seller’s GST registration.
HC set aside demand raised by Revenue Department on the ground that rectification order under section 161 of CGST Act was passed without giving opportunity of being heard to assessee.
CESTAT held that effluent does not qualify to be a ‘good’ as per Sales of Goods Act, 1930 and as per definition of GTA only transportation of ‘goods’ is covered under GTA service. Thus, transportation of effluent by GTA is out from ambit of service tax.
In the present case, the investigation was aimed at detecting tax evasion. Thus, seizure of cash which did not form part of the stock in trade was not justified. Accordingly, the retention of such cash by the Revenue department was not correct.
AAR, Telangana, in M/s. Sai Service Pvt. Limited ruled that, ITC cannot be availed on test-drive vehicles when retained in a workshop as a replacement vehicle.
Delhi HC challenges respondents’ action to seize ₹19.5 lakh during a CGST Act search. Verdict favors refund of the unlawfully removed cash to the petitioner.
A mere averment in the Show Cause Notice that the appellant had suppressed the fact cannot mean that mens rea is established, No penalty if Alleged suppression of facts was not willful with an intent to evade payment of service tax.
Delve into CESTAT Ahmedabad’s ruling in Kalpataru Transmission Ltd vs C.C.-Mundra, a case concerning penalties and goods misdeclaration accusations.
