Wipro Enterprises Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer (CESTAT Chennai) The appellant is aggrieved by the disallowance of credit on rent-a-cab service. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Shri R. Rajesh, Head – Taxation of the appellant-company appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of […]
I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time its statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that it has also filed a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition.
M/s. C.P.C. (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Coimbatore (CESTAT Chennai) The very variation in the description of the goods in the dealers’ invoice, as well as the material inward notes, cannot be a ground for alleging that the appellant has availed fraudulent credit. There is no allegation with respect to the […]
Smt. Ramilaben B. Patel Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Ahmedabad) This tribunal in the case of Rameshbhai Somabhai Patel vs. ITO (Supra) has held that the bank account of the assessee is not considered as part of the books of accounts.The relevant part of this order of the Tribunal is already reproduced above. From the […]
As per Public Notice 161/2016 an undertaking had to be produced by DPD importers in case of part delivery. It has been decided that henceforth only importers having manufacturing facilities (manufacturer importers) can avail the facility of part delivery on submission of an undertaking as per the procedure laid down in PN 47/2007, dated 07.11.2007 & the Public Notice No.161/2016, dated 28.11.2016.
In re M/s Aristoplast Products Pvt Ltd (GST AAR Daman/Diu/DNH) 1. In the first case against Application dtd 12.09.2018 filed by M/S Aristoplast Products Pvt Ltd, Survey No 45/2-8, Vapi Daman main road, Dabhel, Nani Daman, Advance Ruling is given that the product Plastics Broom-Sticks is classifiable under HSN Code 96032100 as “Others” and the […]
We find from the label/packaging of the goods that the percentage of cheese is not more than 55%, which indicates that though cheese is the major component of the goods but it cannot be said to be present in such quantity that it predominates or overwhelms the presence of other ingredients. It is observed that the percentage of other ingredients is as high as 45%, which should prevent the goods from retaining the character of cheese. Therefore acceptance of these goods as cheese would not be the correct position.
In re M/s. Nutan warehousing Company Pvt. Ltd. (GST AAAR Maharashtra) Products stored in the warehouse of the appellant are not the agricultural produce, we come to the question asked in the advance ruling application filed by the them i.e. Whether the supply of warehouse services used for packing & storage of tea, under above […]
A. FAQs on Filing an Appeal against Registration Order (FORM GST APL-01) Q.1 Who can file an appeal to the Appellate Authority? Ans: Any taxpayer or an unregistered person aggrieved by any decision or order passed against him (with respect to Registration, amendment or cancellation etc.) by an adjudicating authority, may appeal to the Appellate […]
Mondal Construction Co. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) We note that assessee had debited a sum of Rs.10,99,907/-in the profit & loss account on account of discount on sale of flat. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the said discount stating that some of the parties to whom the discount had been given, had informed that […]
