Karnataka High Court held that inadvertent mistake committed while filing GSTR-1 return is permitted to be amended since there was no loss of revenue whatsoever to the department post such rectification of error.
CESTAT Chennai held that construction of Traffic and Transit Management Centers is covered within the ambit of transport terminal, and hence falls within the exclusion category of definition of taxable services of Works Contract Services, and hence the same is not liable to service tax.
CESTAT Kolkata held that in absence of any cogent and corroborative evidence, gold in question cannot be construed to be of foreign origin or smuggled in nature. Accordingly, god seized is not liable for confiscation under section 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act. 1962. Accordingly, order is set aside.
CESTAT Mumbai held that services rendered by Marriott Hotels India Private Limited to their group company [Marriott Hong Kong] qualifies as export of services and accordingly no service tax is leviable. Thus, order quashed and appeal allowed.
Bombay High Court held that this court order doesn’t contain any ‘finding’ or ‘direction’ as contemplated by provisions of section 153(6) and consequently no order of assessment could be passed in view of bar of limitation in section 153(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Karnataka High Court held that provisions of section 153C of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked since the petitioner was a searched person and not a non-searched person / such other person. Accordingly, the proceedings quashed.
ITAT Jaipur held that application for approval under section 80G inadvertently considered as application under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act is against principle of natural justice. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(E).
CESTAT Kolkata held that the allegation of clandestine removal of goods cannot be sustained on the basis of documents recovered from such third-party premises. Accordingly, issue answered in favour of the appellant.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that denial of refund claim on the basis of limitation cannot be justified, since amount during investigation was paid under bona fide belief and particularly, when the Department itself acknowledged non-liability. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
Madras High Court held that issuance of show cause notice under section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 impermissible since tax already paid voluntarily and there was no tax liability to be paid at the time of issuance of show cause notice. Accordingly, notice quashed.
