Held that the retrospectivity of tax or its collection brought in by the Finance Act 16 of 2011 is not controlled by the validation clause in section 12 of that Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
The dispute in the present writ petition lies in a narrow compass and relates to the rejection of the petitioners claims for budgetary support under a ‘Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Service Tax’ regime on the ground that the claims were made for the period prior to the GST registration which is impermissible.
there seems to be a consistent view that if there is substantial compliance, denial of benefit of Input Tax Credit which is a beneficial scheme and framed with the larger public interest of bringing down the cascading effect of multiple taxes ought not to be frustrated on the ground of technicalities. In view of the above, we are inclined to affirm the order of the learned Single Judge in directing the petitioner/ respondent to enable the respondent herein to file a revised Form TRAN-1, by opening of the portal and that such exercise is to be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of issue this order.
There is no dispute that unaccounted cash and jewellery and valuables were recovered during the course of search conducted at the premises of the petitioner and the petitioner’s associates. These assets have to be taxed in the hands of the petitioner. To assess tax on the assets seized from the petitioner, there is no necessity for extending the petitioner the benefit of cross examination of witnesses.
‘Common Parlance Test, ‘Marketability Test; ‘Popular Meaning Test’ were tools for interpretation to arrive at a decision on the proper classification of tariff entry. Therefore, ‘manufactured sand’ would certainly fall under the entry ‘sand’, as it stood during the relevant period. The Notification dated 31.03.2015 was only clarificatory and that would not disentitle assessee to claim the reduced rate of tax at 5/5.5% under Entry 83 of the Third Schedule of the KVAT Act.
S.J.Suryah (a.k.a. S.Justin Selvaraj) Vs S. S. Chakravarthy (Madras High Court) Facts- According to appellant, the credit for the story, screenplay and dialogue pertaining to the film ‘Vaalee’ was given to him. The appellant argued that the Trial Court had erred in granting interim injunction, merely because the Petitioner could not produce the written agreement […]
Since no discrepancy had been found with regard to the suppliers of assessee, the refund claim by assessee could not be denied to be processed on the ground that verification of the suppliers of assessee’s supplier was pending as the provisions of the CGST Act and the IGST Act did not mandate refund claimant to verify the genuineness of the suppliers of its supplier, inasmuch as enough safeguards/mechanism were provided under the Act to recover the taxes, if not paid or wrong credit was availed by assessee’s supplier or supplier’s supplier.
CIGFIL Retail Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court) HC held that it is not a case of tax evasion or causing revenue loss to the Government rather petitioner’s activity of carrying on the business which cannot be called illegal is creating revenue for the State as well as in helping the State […]
Unifab Engineering Project Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs Deputy Commissioner CGST And CEX (Bombay High Court) 1. A show cause-cum-demand notice dated July 29, 2021 issued by the Deputy Commissioner CGST & CEX, respondent no.1, is under challenge in this writ petition. By the impugned notice, explanation has been called for from the petitioners as […]
PCIT Vs Vaidya Panalalmanilal (HUF) (Gujarat High Court) The materials on record would suggest that there was no dispute at the hands of the Revenue that the sale consideration arising out of the sale of the capital asset was used for acquisition of a new asset and that such newly acquired asset was also shown […]
