In re Jayant Food Products (GST AAR Gujarat) Question: Under which tariff Heading PAPAD of different shapes and sizes manufactured/ supplied by the applicant would attract CGST and SGST? Answer : The product ‘Un-fried Fryums’ manufactured and supplied by applicant is classifiable under Tariff Item 2106 90 99 of the First Schedule to the Customs […]
It is the case of the petitioner that the transportation was of a consignment of watches that had been supplied to him by the seller in Delhi at a discounted rate of Rs.8.99. It is seen that the transportation of the goods was accompanied by Ext.P4 tax invoice, where the supplier in Delhi had shown the actual price of the consignment of watches, which was Rs.4,49,550/- and had given a discount of almost the entire amount save to the extent of Rs.8.99, and had paid IGST at the rate of 18% on the actual value of the watches.
Notional interest has to be considered as part of value of supply of service, if and only if the said notional interest influences the value of supply i.e. value of RIS service / monthly rent and is leviable to GST along with monthly rent at the rate applicable to monthly rent.
LM Wind Power Blades India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that action of respondent No. 4 in encashing the bank guarantees without waiting for expiry of the appeal period is wholly illegal and should be declared as such by this court. He submits that respondent […]
In re Essel Mining and Industries Ltd. (GST AAR Madhya Pradesh) Upfront payment made to the state Government is in the nature of advance from the date Of allotment of mines on lease to the applicant for the purpose of determining the time of supply under GST Law as per the Section 13(3) of MP […]
The discretion available to the competent authority u/S 67(5) of the CGST Act while withholding supply of copies/extracts of documents seized appears to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority for reasons which prima facie appear to be cogent and convincing.
In the instant case, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash show cause notice issued by the respondents. The petitioner to reply to the said show cause notice within two weeks. Thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority shall consider the objection filed and pass orders in accordance with law.
L. R. Brothers Indo Flora Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Supreme Court) The appellant being a 100% EOU and into manufacture of cut flowers, without obtaining the approval of the Development Commissioner and without maintaining the requisite net foreign exchange earning, made DTA sales to the extent of Rs.38,40,537/ during 1998-99 to 200001 (upto […]
ITO Vs. Aravali Prime Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Jaipur) In this case, it is noted that the AO during the course of assessment proceeding made the addition of Rs. 2,63,15,000/- (138500 shares x Rs. 190 per share) on account of share premium received on issue of shares by the assessee company. Thus the AO observed […]
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Artex Textile Private Limited (CESTAT Delhi) we find that assessing officer have been making enhancement in a routine manner and the respondent who are regular importers are left with no choice but to sign on the dotted line for taking delivery of their goods to carry on their business, and also […]
