The appeal is disposed of, answering the questions of law in favour of the Revenue; but restraining the respondent-Revenue from recovering the amounts refunded since as of now the levy of service tax on the payment in lieu of foreign agency commission will not be leviable as ‘Business Auxiliary service’ prior to 18.04.2006. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
PCIT Vs Akshit Kumar (Delhi High Court) ITAT observed that in the impugned AY 2014-15, the audited balance-sheet reflected an opening stock of Rs. 19,53,29,660/- which stood accepted by the Department either under the scrutiny proceedings or by not selecting the return for scrutiny or by not taking any action to disturb such returned income. […]
Kiran Gupta Vs State Bank of India & Anr. (Delhi high Court) Whether a Bank/Financial Institution can institute or continue with proceedings against a Guarantor under the SARFAESI Act, when proceedings under the IBC have been initiated against the Principal Borrower & the same are pending adjudication? Section 128 of the Contract Act provides that […]
No doubt, economic offences should be dealt with sternly, however mere allegations of economic offence does not dis-entitled any person from seeking personal liberty unless there are overwhelming material against such person. In the present case, no money trail has been brought on record which shows that accused Ashish Aggawal is the ultimate beneficiary of alleged fake ITC credits.
The issue under consideration is whether the show cause notice indicate the exact amount of service demanded in the respective services under Service Tax? An adjudication order without a proposal and made in pursuant of a vague show cause notice cannot be sustained.
Damodar Corporation Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court) Impugned orders passed under GST ACT were passed without hearing the petitioner, the said orders cannot be legally sustained inasmuch as they have been passed in violation of the rules of natural justice. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P14 series of orders and direct the 7th respondent to […]
Merely exercising option under composite scheme cannot prevent Revenue Department from demanding recovery of GST The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Godway Furnicrafts vs. the State of AP [Writ Petition No. 10350 of 2020, dated November 11, 2020] confirmed the demand for recovery of Goods and Services Tax (GST) by Revenue Department and held […]
Petitioner states that the refund has been denied to the petitioner on the sole ground that petitioner had exported goods through Foreign Post Offices in August and September 2017, while Notification dated 04th June, 2018 read with circular no. 14/2018-Customs dated 04.06.2018 has notified exports by post Regulations, 2018 w.e.f. 21st June, 2018 which provides for an entry to be presented to proper officer at the Foreign Post Office of clearance.
HC Allows Petitioner Retrospective Registration under Tamil Nadu GST. Court directs the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation, dated 14.09.2020 seeking for validation of his registration from 01.07.2017 itself and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law.
Kothari International Trading Limited Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) The only point to be decided herein is whether the loan amount waived by the bank is taxable income or not. As already stated, in the decision referred by the learned counsel for the appellants in the case of CIT Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra, the assessees […]
