The Court addressed whether appeals could proceed despite low tax effect. It held that since Rule 8(3A) was already struck down and not in issue, appeals were not maintainable.
The authority held that bulk drugs, including APIs, fall within the definition of drugs under applicable laws. Consequently, IGST at 5% applies under the specific rate notification.
In re FMC India Private Limited (CAAR Mumbai) The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), Mumbai, examined an application filed by FMC India Private Limited seeking classification of two chemicals—Carbosulfan Technical and Clomazone Technical—under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, following amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2025. The applicant contended that these chemicals, being separate […]
The issue involved classification of EV parts under customs tariff. The Authority refused to issue a ruling as a similar matter was already pending before the High Court, rendering the application non-maintainable.
Link Up Textiles Private Limited (GST AAAR Tamilnadu) The appeal was filed by the appellant under Section 100(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against Advance Ruling No. 42/AAR/2025 dated 08.10.2025 issued by the Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR). The […]
The authority condoned a 28-day delay after finding that technical issues on the GST portal prevented timely filing. It held that such circumstances constitute sufficient cause under Section 100(2).
The Tribunal examined whether threshing and redrying of tobacco leaves fall under Business Auxiliary Services. It held that the activity is not taxable, setting aside the demand.
The Tribunal examined whether gold coin sales amounted to consignment agent services. It held that the activity was trading involving transfer of title and not a taxable service.
The High Court held that DRT orders are appealable under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. It ruled that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked without exhausting the statutory remedy.
The Tribunal held that corpus donations received with specific directions are capital in nature and cannot be included in annual receipts. Since actual receipts were below ₹1 crore, exemption was allowed.
