Calcutta High Court denies the writ petition challenging the assessment order u/s 147, emphasizing no objection filed in time. Alternative remedies noted.
Delhi High Court states that mere claims of fraud or willful misstatement are inadequate grounds for cancelling a GST registration without solid proof.
Calcutta High Court directs the West Bengal government to address extra tax burdens on ongoing government contracts due to the introduction of GST.
Delhi High Court rules that only the Commissioner has the authority under the CGST Act to freeze accounts, deeming other orders as without legal backing.
Gujarat High Court held that mere rendering of services cannot be roped into Fees for Technical Service (FTS) unless the person utilizing the services is able to make use of the technical knowledge etc. Simple rendering of services is not sufficient to qualify as FTS.
Delhi High Court held that Sanitaryware meant for use in the kitchen, toilets or bathroom and although it may portray some art work in its designs, it is not artwork or handicraft Therefore, duty drawback could only be claimed in category of goods falling Chapter 74 vide item No. 741802.
Exploring the case of Karmaxx Infotech vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) in the Madras High Court about GST registration cancellation and legal compliance.
In the case of Vinplex India Private Limited Vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/ACIT, the Madras High Court addresses the consequences of unexplained income addition due to non-filing of reply by the assessee, accompanied by changes in address and email ID. The court directs the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the petitioner was rendering advisory services to entity in Singapore. The petitioner had repeatedly filed submissions before the concerned authorities (Adjudicating Authority as well as Appellate Authority) explaining that it is rendering “advisory services to overseas group companies with respect to investment avenues in transportation sector after performing its own analysis and due diligence”.
Madras High Court held that CTH 2008 19 20 specifically covers roasted areca nut / betel nut, accordingly, when there is a specific entry covering a product/commodity, the test of common parlance is irrelevant in determining classification.
