Section 245 empowers the Revenue to set off or adjust the amounts to be refunded against any amounts remaining payable by the person concerned under the Act is a discretionary remedy. However, before the adjustment is done, intimation would u/s 245 of the Act to the party is mandatory.
M/s. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court) Allahabad High Court has held that Cenvat credit need not be reversed in respect of bagasse which is an agricultural waste and not a manufactured final produ The High Court quashed CBIC Circular No.1027/15/2016-CX, dated 25-4-2016 which treated bagasse as exempted product. It […]
Ms. H.M. Industrial Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise (Gujarat High Court) Section 83 of the CGST Act inter alia provides that where during the pendency of any proceedings under sections 67, 73 or 74, the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue, […]
The amount reimbursed to the assessee (service provider) by the ONGC (service recipient), representing the service tax paid earlier by the assessee to the Government of India, would not form part of the aggregate amount referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section(2) of Section 44BB of the Act.
One fails to understand why the concerned officer has at all attended the proceedings, if he had not bothered to come with the files. It is evident that the concerned officer must be availing of leave as well as other benefits for the purpose of coming from Bhavnagar to Ahmedabad. However, in absence of the files, the entire purpose of coming to the High Court is totally frustrated.
CBDT circular dated 29.02.2016 which requires 20% deposit of tax pending appeal is not rigid and cannot be implemented in all the cases. Based on the facts of the case, the deposit percentage can be increased or decreased.
The order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 281B of the Act has been ceased to have effect after the expiry of six months from the date of the order of the assessment. Hence, the apprehension of the petitioner regarding the enforcement of the provisional attachment further would not arise and the same can be allayed with a direction to the respondent- authorities that the said order shall not be enforced until a decision is to be taken by the Appellate Authority on the stay application, if to be filed in the appeal proceedings by the assessee within a period of three weeks as aforesaid and is ordered
Transfer Pricing- No notional interest on transaction of purchase and sale of redeemable preference shares as it was not equivalent to interest free loans advances
Points that emerge for adjudication are whether the search and seizure under GST was carried out by observing the ‘substantive due process’ as well as the ‘procedural due process.’
Union of India Vs Shiyaad (Kerala High Court) Respondents, members of the Plastic Recycling Industrial Association’ had sent a representation to the GST Council on 27.07.2017 by post alleging that levy of 18% GST on recycled plastic products had made adverse impact on that industry; that a prayer was made for completely withdrawing levy of […]
