YSI Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) EPCG scheme Non-mentioning of authorisation in case of third-party exports is not fatal: The Madras High Court has held that the requirement of mentioning EPCG licence of the manufacturer in the shipping bill, in case of third-party exports, though mandatory as per Para […]
Exemption notification has to be interpreted stricto sensu. No external aids can be brought in to interpret an exemption notification. If assessees, who claim benefit of exemption notification, fail to fulfil any one of the conditions contained therein, the benefit cannot be extended.
Sanjay Prahladbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) It is submitted that the applicant is arrested in connection with the alleged demand by the GST authorities without determining the extent liability of the said alleged demand. It is submitted that the arrest of the applicant in the alleged offence is effected only on […]
Vijay Metal Vs Deputy Commercial Tax officer (Telangana High Court) 1. The point that Hyderabad comes first and Adoni comes later; ignoring the operational convenience of the transporter; is not justifiable. HC not accepted the contention of the officer that even if the goods meant to be delivered at Adoni were loaded on top of […]
Watanmal Boolchand & Co. Ltd. Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Reassessment against a Hongkong-based company, Watanmal Boolchand was justified as there was a prima facie the case of ‘Business Connection’ of assessee-company in India. Held: Assessee-company was incorporated outside India under the laws of Hong Kong. One of the group […]
Ocean Sparkle Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Ocean Sparkle Ltd. (Appellant) has filed the current writ petition challenging the Assessment Order bearing Ref. No. ZD370321001535W dated March 17, 2021 on the grounds of non-compliance with provisions laid in Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The […]
The respective authorities was restrained from declaring Company as a defaulter under the SVLDR Scheme and from from taking any coercive action against the Directors, Officials of company as the Income Tax department did not release the refund due to assessee and therefore, assessee could not pay the amount determined by the Designated Committee under the SVLDRS.
Koenig Solutions Private Limited Vs Union Of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court by order dated 28.04.2021 granted stay on the proceedings/ summons by CGST officer, when proceeding already conducted by State Tax Officer. 1. Delhi High Court by order 28.04.2021 in WP (C) No 5040/2021 in the matter of M/s. Koenig […]
Sri Muniappa Steels Vs Assistant Commissioner (Madras High Court) GST: Assessment order passed without supplying the third party evidence relied on: Set aside by the Madras HC on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. An assessment order passed under the GST laws, based on a statement given by a third party dealer for […]
Service Providers in Telecom Sector” meant and included only the Telecom Service Providers of services mentioned therein. The ambit and scope of such exclusion was not of Service Providers who render services to such Telecom Service Providers. Though, a similar list was not appended to FTP or HBPv1, there was no reason for a different interpretation to be placed to FTP 2015-20. Clearly, what was made ineligible for availing benefit of SEIS in terms of paragraph 3.09(2)(i) were the Telecom Service Providers and not the Service Providers who provide services to such Telecom Sector.
