Considering the fact that the prosecution could not point out as to how much amount is misappropriated under the Input Tax Credit and that material part of investigation is not done, more particularly, when the GST Officer has not lodged any complaint or FIR against the applicant for any misappropriation of the Government funds or State Exchequer.
Income from supply of CAS and middleware products to indian customers, does not fall under ‘royalty’ as defined under Section 9(l)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Article 12(3) of India- Swiss DTAA.
Sureshbhai Ramanbhai Prajapati Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) 1. This application has been filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with FIR No. 11191043220204 of 2022 registered with Shahpur Police Station, Ahmedabad City for offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201 […]
Navya Foods (P.) Ltd. Vs Superintendent of Central Tax (Andhra Pradesh High Court) A perusal of Rule 107 & 108 of the CGST Rules make it clear that the appeal is required to be filed in an electronic mode only and if any other mode is prescribed, then, the same is required to be notified […]
High court held that payment of 10% mandatory pre-deposit for filing appeal u/s. 107(6) of CGST Act 2017 can be made by assessee from Electronic credit ledger and is is not mandatory that pre-deposit should have been made from the cash ledger.
AI Champdany Industries Limited Vs Commissioner (Calcutta High Court) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MAX INDIA LTD. 2007 295 ITR 282 (SC) had taken note of the fact that Section 80HHC had been amended eleven times and different views existed on the day, when the COMMISSIONER (therein) passed […]
Subex Limited Vs DCIT (Karnataka High Court) we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer framed an incorrect question for his consideration that whether sale of Hardware which is not manufactured by the assessee could be considered as part of export. The CIT(A) also committed the same error. We say so because: firstly, […]
Where the parties have agreed to give only supervisory powers to a third party with respect to the disputes arising between them, and a clause which does not disclose the intention of the parties to give any adjudicatory powers to the third party, does not qualify as an ‘arbitration agreement’, as defined under Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The department objected the bail application mainly on the ground that investigation is still under way. This Court is of considered view that, merely raising the contention that investigation is still going on is not enough, but, department should have point out that the further custody of the applicant is necessary.
Where order in Form GST DRC-07 as visible in GSTN Portal did not contain reasons, same was wholly defective and, hence was to be remitted back for fresh adjudication
