Gauhati High Court held that betel nuts not being a notified item under section 123(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the initial burden to show that the material seized is of foreign origin lies upon the revenue authority. Confiscation unsustained as revenue failed to discharge its initial burden.
Tripura High Court declared that the assessee has the right to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) for taxable works contract services utilized in the construction of immovable property. Discover the significance of this ruling and its implications for taxpayers in availing ITC for construction-related services.
Rajasthan High Court held that Pizza and Sandwich categorized as ‘Cooked Food’ are entitled for exemption of payment of VAT in excess of 5%.
Calcutta HC in J. L. Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax held that cash-credit facility is not a debt, thus cannot be attached through provisional attachment order.
Guwahati High Court held that writ petition not entertained as the same is hit by the alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioners to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority competent to deal with the issues raised in this writ petition.
Madras High Court held that there is no necessity for providing opportunity to each and every member of the Society in the proceedings initiated under Section 34A of the Income Tax Act.
Supreme Court’s ruling in Sheetal Mittal vs. State of Rajasthan, where anticipatory bail was denied due to fabricated GST number and firm name
Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of IGST Act are legal, valid, and constitutional & these provisions should operate exclusively within scope of IGST Act, and cannot be applied to levy tax on services under CGST
In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court set aside the order and notice issued under Section 148A(d) and 148, respectively, in the case of Premium Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT. The court directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a de novo assessment after the petitioner received the notice on the same day as the order.
Delhi High Court held that when two contradictory final outcomes is delivered vide two different orders, the reasoned outcome based on analysis of material prevails over outcome without an iota of reason.
