Reserve Bank of India RBI/2019-20/152 A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 20 January 23, 2020 To All Category – I Authorised Dealer Banks Madam / Sir Merchanting Trade Transactions (MTT) – Revised Guidelines Attention of Authorised Dealer Category-I banks (AD banks) is invited to A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No.115 dated March 28, 2014 containing directions relating to merchanting […]
It is a case where a vehicle alongwith goods were seized when it was found carrying goods in violation of the Act of 2017. The petitioner alongwith owner of the goods was served with the notice before seizure of the goods.
Star India (P) Ltd. Vs Society of Catalysts & Anr. (Supreme Court) Supreme Court dismissed a ruling of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that had ordered Star India and Airtel to pay punitive damages over alleged unfair trade practices in collecting funds to build up the cash prize for the popular quiz programme, […]
Rajah Sir Annamalai Vs CCIT (Madras High Court) The fact that Clause 10 of the Trust Deed states that the fees and charges shall be fixed taking into account the cost of running including future development thereof though without an element of profit motive indicates that the actual intention of the trust is only to […]
On Appeal High Court held that no GST is leviable under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2007, on the ocean freight for the services provided by a person located in a non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India upto the customs station of clearance in India and the levy and collection of tax of such ocean freight under the impugned Notification Notification No.8 of 2017 – Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 and Notification No. 10 of 2017 – Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 is not permissible in law.
On perusal of the provision of section 97(2), we find that the question on the determination of place of supply has not been covered in the above set of questions, on which advance ruling can be given. Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to pass any ruling on such questions which involve the determination of the place of supply of goods or services or both.
Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has vehemently opposed the bail application. It is contended that petitioner has created fake firms and has fraudulently, transferred input tax to as many as 470 beneficiary parties. Out of which, fifty five parties took fraudulent input tax credit and have now reversed those entries. It is contended that total loss caused to the exchequer is to the tune of Rs. Thirty three crore, out of which, Rs. Thirteen crore has been recovered so far. It is also contended that petitioner avoided service of summons and was arrested from Ajmer.
From the submissions made on this issue it is seen that the applicant neither owns the said goods nor delivers the same to their customers. Applicant only facilitates the transaction between the buyer and the seller through their website and acts as an intermediary. We find that there is no sale of goods undertaken by the applicant in this case, therefore such supply will not be considered at all, as sale of goods effected by the applicant. When there is primarily, no sale of goods by the applicant, the question as to whether such supply will be considered as export sale under GST ACT does not arise at all.
CBIC clarifies on Twitter that News of Extension of Due Date of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B is Fake. Claim: Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has further extended the GSTR-1 late fee waiver scheme to Jan 31, 2020. Reality: This is Fake News. The scheme ended on Jan 17, 2020 and has not been […]
ECIL Rapiscan Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Hyderabad) In view of the above, we find that this is a fit case to be remanded to the original authority to re-determine the amount of cenvat credit which needs to be disallowed, the interest thereon and the appropriate penalty as follows: (i) while computing the […]
