Vinod Oil and General Mills Vs Union of India and others (Punjab & Haryana High Court) According to the Petitioner, despite applying for refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 14,21,479/- accumulated on account of inverted tax structure, in form RFD-01, under Section 54 (3) (b) of the Central Goods and Service Tax […]
S R Dass Vs Cpio And Nodal Officer (Delhi High Court) The learned counsels for the respondents, however, again reiterates that the documents of a third party are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act. They submit that a reply on the similar terms had also been issued to the petitioner vide letter […]
CIT Vs Jalaram Jagruti Development Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) It was held by ITAT that receipts in question cannot be brought to tax in A.Y. 2003-04 to 2005-06. These receipts have already been accounted for in the books of account and can be taxed only in the year in which project is complete as […]
The dispute in the present case lies within a narrow compass. It is undisputed that the petitioner ensured transportation of the vehicles under appropriate e-way bills that were valid from 31.12.2018 at 10.37 pm to 1.1.2019. The petitioner contends that the conveyance carrying the vehicles reached the place of destination on 1.1.2019 before the expiry of the validity of the e-way bills but the vehicles could not be unloaded on the same day and were being unloaded on 2.1.2019.
Shiridi Sainadh Industries Vs Deputy Commissioner ST INT (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Whether the impugned assessment order levying GST on the estimated by-products value, treating such by-products as part of the consideration for milling, is legally sustainable under the provisions of CGST/APGST Act, 2017 or not? POINT: As can be seen, Custom Milling Rice is […]
Shiridi Sainadh Industries Vs Deputy Commissioner ST INT (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Assessment Order passed by the 1st respondent vide Ref. No.CGST/ 2017-18/05 dated 29.10.2018 in so far as it relates to the levy of GST on the value of by-products i.e., broken rice, bran and husk treating […]
Nirmla Devi Vs State of H.P. (Himchal Pradesh, Shimla High Court) It is more than settled that practice of law is not akin to any other business or profession as it involves a dual duty – nay a primary duty to the Court and then a duty to the litigant with the privilege to address […]
Telco Construction Co. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court) Thus, from perusal of the relevant clauses of the agreement, it is clear that the assessee is a joint venture company and under the agreement has been granted non transferable licence to manufacture / assemble the Hitachi licence products within the territory using technical know-how furnished […]
Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. Chief Commissioner and another (Madhya Pradesh High Court) petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the provision of Rule 142(1) of CGST Act to contend that the said provision statutarily obliges the revenue department to communicate show-cause notice/order by uploading the same on the website of revenue so that […]
Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. Chief Commissioner And Another (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Rule 142 of CGST Act reveals that the only mode prescribed for communicating the show-cause notice/order is by way of uploading the same on website of the revenue. The State in its reply has provided no material to show that show-cause notice/order No.10 […]
