The assessee was printing PAN cards for the Income Tax Department, Government of India. Service tax was paid on such activity. Sales tax authorities held that it is a works contract liable to VAT.
Petitioner seeks an order and direction against to it to rectify inadvertent mistake in mentioning incorrect place of supply in Form GSTR1
Vainguinim Valley Resort Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The Hon’ble High Court held that there was no service provider or service receiver contract between the parties justifying the levy of service tax set aside. Matter remanded back. The Department issued show cause notice on the Petitioner demanding service tax on the amount received from […]
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules prescribes that if for ‘Any reason’ the use of the said credit is not possible, the manufacturer or provider of the output service shall be allowed refund of such amount. The sole reason for denying the refund claim is […]
Vodafone Mobile Services Limited Vs Union of India (Madhya Pradesh High court) The petitioner makes a fresh application for refund of excess tax paid by the present petitioner, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law afresh. The Department rejected the refund claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner had failed […]
Vaztar International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court) Rejection of application filed under SVLDRS, 2019 on the ground of ineligibility with the remark that DGGI had informed that the quantification was not done prior to 30.06.2019. The Designated committee rejected SVLDRS Form-1 on the ground that the petitioner was ineligible as […]
Bijal Dhimankumar Vyas Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) The Designated committee (DC) did not consider the amount of pre-deposit made during investigation. The High Court held that the CESTAT had granted stay to the Petitioner on the basis of payment of pre-deposit. Thus, this deposit is not in dispute. The rejection was set […]
Lupin Ltd. Vs Union of India (Andhra Pradesh High Court) The petitioner challenged ex-parte order refund cannot be rejected merely for non-submission of documents. Relies upon the rule 90(3) and proviso thereto of CGST Rules. The Petitioner challenged ex-parte order rejecting claim for refund on the ground of non-submission of documents. Argues that the circular […]
Telangana HC follows SC Judgment in Filco Trade on opening of GST Portal for claiming transitional credit for two months from 01.09.2022 to 30.10.2022.
Opportunity to cross examine witnesses not given to petitioner. Rule of alternate remedy not a bar for High Court to exercise Writ jurisdiction.
