Mangalam Cement Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST (CESTAT Delhi) Appeal is filed against denial of cenvat credit of service tax taken by the appellant on maintenance and repair work of their residential colony on the ground that the said service has no nexus with the manufacture of final product. Rule 2(l) of Cenvat […]
For the purpose of Faceless Jurisdiction of Income-tax Authorities Scheme, 2022 the exercise of all or any or the powers and performance of all or any of the functions conferred on, or, as the case may be, assigned to income-tax authorities, by or under the Act as referred to in section 120 of the Act;
Milap Scrap Traders Through Pro. Harshadbhai Manubhai Patel Vs State/Commercial Tax Officer (Gujarat High Court) High Court held that the condition precedent for exercise of power under Rule 86A of the GST Rules is the availability of credit in the electronic credit ledger which is alleged to be ineligible. If credit balance is available, then […]
Ratan Lal Patel Vs Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya (Supreme Court of India) It can be seen that the impugned order allowing the review application is a cryptic, non-reasoned and non-speaking order as Nothing has been mentioned and/or observed as to what was that error apparent on the face of the record which called for […]
L. Ponnammal Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) By this writ petition a challenge is made to Sections 128 to 146 of the Finance Act, 2021 , with an alternative prayer to declare Section 5(9) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 and Sections 128 to 130 and Sections 132 to 146 of the […]
Rubal International Vs Commissioner of Customs (ICD, TKD) (CESTAT Delhi) I find that only few goods were found to be mismatch with the invoice and packing list. I further find that the appellant had given cogent explanation based on the statement and clarification of the shipper, via E-mail, clarifying that due to a large variety […]
Existing Category III AIFs may opt for calculating investment concentration norm based on investable funds with the approval of their trustees or board of directors or designated partners, as the case may be, and inform the same to their investors within 30 days from the date of the issuance of this circular.
Poorti Rent a Car and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Provisions of the SARFAESI Act can be applied even in respect of loan agreements entered into before such enactment was brought into force, we see nothing in any law to hold that the provisions thereof can never be resorted […]
HID India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) In this case refund of the unutilized cenvat credit was rejected holding that; firstly, the input services were received prior to obtaining the service tax registration from the Department; secondly, the invoices show the address of their Head office at Bangalore and […]
Marina Enterprises Vs Commissioner, Customs, Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) Admittedly the appellant have sold the goods in India after importing and have paid sales tax on the said goods. Admittedly, they are registered with the Sales Tax Department having TIN number and have charged sales tax in their sales […]
