Rakesh Malhotra Vs Government of National Capital Territory of India and Ors (Delhi High Court) 1. Last night, we had passed the order in W.P .(C) No. 4970/2021 on the assurance given by the learned Solicitor General, that Delhi would be provided with Medical Oxygen as per its allocation made on 21.04.2021 —with effect from […]
Devi Prasad Tripathy Vs The Principal Commissioner CGST and Central Excise (Orissa High Court) A compliance affidavit has been filed by the Principal Commissioner, GST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Bhubaneswar enclosing the copies of instructions issued on 9th April, 2021 and 15th April, 2021 reiterating, inter alia, that the services provided by an advocate or […]
Rule 8(3A) applied to cases where assessee had defaulted in payment of excise duty beyond 30 days from the due date and it did not apply to every case where in the department, during the scrutiny of returns, during audit or during investigation found any additional amount payable as duty of excise. Tribunal had given cogent reasons for its finding that assessee’s case was a case of demand under Section 11A and was not covered by Rule 8(3A) and the Revenue was not correct in denying utilization of Cenvat Credit to the assessee by applying the said sub-rule.
Anticipatory bail was granted to the person accused of non-payment of GST to the tune of Rs 17.53 Crores and non-filing of GSTR 3B returns as it was settled position that the applicant apprehending arrest need not be made an accused in a crime to seek the relief of anticipatory bail and it was sufficient in case he succeeded in establishing that his apprehension of arrest was reasonable.
Withholding tax rate of 5% is to be applied while making payment of dividend by Indian entity to its shareholder in Netherlands after applying the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause in the Tax Treaty between India and Netherlands.
Runwal Constructions Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: Notice issued to assessee for prohibiting the transfer of property for alleged non-payment of Excise duty by Respondent No. 3 was quashed as excise dues were not dues which arise out of land or building. Such liabilities could be in the form of property tax, […]
Gujarat High Court relegates GST appeal to statutory authority. Petitioner challenged summary order lacking detailed consideration. Alternative remedy suggested.
Karma Buildcon Through Chetan Rameshbhai Jogi Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) For Builders, Real Estate developers, Para 2 Notification No.11/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.6.2017 provides for deduction of 33% from the value of supply as deemed value of land. In some of the cases due to this artificial deduction of value of […]
Neither Section 194-C nor 194-I of the Act would be applicable to the lease financing of motor vehicles; thus there could have been no disallowance on the ground that there was no tax deduction at source made by the Assessee.
Sarvasiddhi Agrotech Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India (Tripura High Court) We do not find any error in the view of the authorities. Firstly, the conclusions of these authorities are based on assessment of materials on record. Secondly, the seizure of sizable quantity of packaged branded rice was an indication of the petitioner dealing in […]
