In view of the foregoing, the documentary material shown to us by the Respondent leads to the conclusion that the land in question would be categorized as a capital asset. Therefore, the assessee cannot claim the benefit of exemption to agricultural land and hence, the compensation received by the assessee in pursuance of land acquisition proceedings, is subject to tax and the refund has been rightly rejected,
Arvind Kumar Munka Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court) The petitioner as I have been found in the earlier order that he is a Chartered Accountant by profession and with the similar contention he has averred that he is no way connected with the instant case. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused […]
Messrs Synpol Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Gujarat High Court) When the respondents had issued show cause notice demanding excise duty together with confiscation of the goods in terms of Rule 25 (a) and (d) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and redemption fine in lieu of confiscation under Rule-25 as goods were […]
If any operator of teer-counter has an obligation to get himself registered under the Meghalaya Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, he should be required to obtain necessary registration and make payment of due amount of GST.
High Court denied the grant of reliefs to the petitioner against the detention order passed under Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
It was submitted that in the absence of any discrepancy in the documents and the goods, it is not permissible for the respondents to confiscate either the vehicle or the goods.
Gokul Agro Resources Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) In the given case the HC have reached to the conclusion that no tax is leviable under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on the ocean freight for the services provided by a person located in a non-taxable territory by way of […]
Considering facts that as per Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, interest is payable on the delayed payment of tax and that as per the interest statement filed along with the impugned letter, dated 07.02.2020, there was delay in filing GSTR-3B and hence, interest on ‘cash set off’ and ‘ITC set off’ has been calculated and payment thereof has been asked for, recovery of interest against the petitioner, insofar it relates to `I.T.C. set off, shall remain stayed.
Myres Tyre Supply (India) Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court) In addition to writ with High Court appellant had also moved an application for refund of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed under the TNVAT Act and this application was without prejudice to their rights under section 140(3) of the TNGST Act. The […]
Chandimata Iron Vs State of Tripura (Tripura High Court) Since the order under challenge in this petition is appealable, we permit the petitioner to pursue such appeal for which, we are informed limitation period has yet not expired. However, considering the facts of the case, the goods of the petitioner which are in the nature […]
