The instant petition is filed to seek to release of the detained goods and vehicles under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act. The court directed the respondent authority to release the vehicle and the goods after obtaining a bond of Rs.11,73,480 from the writ applicant.
The issue under consideration is whether CIT(A) is correct in disallowing managerial and administrative expenses for earning dividend income by treating this as tax free income?
The issue under consideration is whether ‘Noticing the conveyance at a wrong destination’ without anything more can be said to be a contravention of the CGST Act?
Gokul P.G. Vs State of Kerala (High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam) Sections 129 and 130 are independent provisions, and that, while a detention of goods and vehicle under Section 129 could entail proceedings under Section 130, in situations where the detained goods/vehicle are not cleared by the owners thereof within a period of 14 […]
Ministry of Civil Aviation Fare bands for domestic flights extended upto 24th February, 2021 Daily passenger traffic reached over 2 lakhs Posted On: 05 NOV 2020 The fare bands within which the airlines have to operate have been extended upto 24th February, 2021 by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. These fare bands came into force […]
The Government of Rajasthan has communicated its acceptance for Option-1 out of the two options suggested by the Ministry of Finance to meet the shortfall in revenue arising out of GST implementation. The State has now joined 21 other States and 3 Union Territories (Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir and Puducherry) who have opted for Option-1.
Heritage Lifestyles and Developers And Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Bombay High Court) This is a case, where admittedly Petitioner could not file GST TRAN-1 on or before 27.12.2017 but had manually applied for GST TRAN-1 on 7.5.2018 as per Circular dated 03.04.2018 within the timeline as per the date extended by this Court. […]
Prathamesh Dream Properties P. Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise & others (Bombay High Court) The issue under consideration is whether petitioner should have the benefit of relief as a declarant under the ‘pending litigation category’ and thus entitled to refund of the amount paid? High Court states that a careful and conjoint […]
An approval letter allegedly issued by the Ministry of MSME is granting a loan and requesting a payment of ₹ 1000 on the pretext of processing fee. This letter is Fake. Ministry of MSME does not directly deal with individual beneficiaries for any of its credit schemes.
The issue under consideration is whether in SVLDR scheme we need to show the amount mentioned in the show cause-cum-demand notice or the amount determined by the adjudicating authority in the original order?
