CESTAT Mumbai held that service tax on construction of complex/building is exempt when there is sale of flat subsequent to date of issue of occupancy certificate from competent authority. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
CESTAT Delhi held that there cannot be suppression or wilful concealment with intent to evade payment of duty since two departmental authorities have differed themselves on the taxability of the services under a specific category.
Bombay High Court held that mere delay in filing application for recall or review, not involving latches, acquiescence or estoppel, would not prevent this Court from exercising inherent power of recalling its order.
Madras High Court held that provisions of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) would prevail over the provisions of Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act).
Unlike conventional crimes which affect individuals or specific groups, economic offences have potentiality to threaten the stability of national economy. Economic offences are grave and they always pose a threat to the health of the economy of the country.
Madras High Court directs adjudicating authority to pass a speaking order with regard to request of the petitioner to cross examine the person and officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence before adjudicating relevant show cause notices.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that customs authority doesn’t have authority to pass an order of provisional attachment under section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 during pendency of investigation. Accordingly, freezing of bank account not justified.
The petitioner became a registered dealer under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, effective from July 1, 2017 and carried out business activities during F.Y. 2017-18, procuring 11,876 MT of sugar and selling the entire stock by March 2018.
ITAT Surat held that provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act are enacted on 15.12.2016 hence taxing addition at higher rate u/s. 115BBE for prior period is not sustainable. Accordingly, AO directed to tax addition at normal rate of tax.
The present case revolves around the Duty Drawback Scheme. This scheme has become the subject of misuse by some traders/ exporters who make fraudulent exports merely with a view of availing the benefits under the scheme.
