CESTAT Ahmedabad held that option to avail or not avail Cenvat credit could be exercised on a contract-by-contract basis. Tribunal further clarified that centralised registration did not affect availment of benefits under notifications in question.
Durga Trading Company case vs. The Additional Director General sees the Delhi High Court address a 14-year delay in adjudicating a Show Cause Notice.
Understand the significance of personal hearings in faceless assessments as mandated by a recent Allahabad High Court judgment. Get insights into the implications for taxpayers.
HC noted oversight in considering documents like GSTR 9C reconciliation statement and deemed it necessary to provide petitioner with an opportunity to contest tax demand.
In Winndsor Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madras HC nullifies GST DRC-07 order for not considering petitioner’s replies, directing a fresh review.
Madras High Court sets aside GST demand order due to lack of reasonable hearing opportunity. Orient Electricals case detailed analysis.
CESTAT Chandigarh rules in favor of Microsoft India, stating services rendered to overseas entity are exports, exempting from service tax.
Sanjeev Mittal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) – CIT(A) can admit additional evidence after giving full opportunity to AO to rebut/offer comments in remand proceeding.
Appellant’s relationship with CIL was one of sale/purchase on a principal-to-principal basis. Therefore, appellant could not be held liable for service tax under BAS.
Service tax demand on services from abroad before 18.4.2006 isn’t sustainable. Issuing authority must specify applicable sub-clause in notice.
