Keshab Automobiles Vs State of Odisha (Orissa High Court) A comparison of the language used in the amended Section 43 (1) of the OVAT Act with its version prior to 1st October, 2015 makes it clear that a new system has been put in place as far as reopening of returns filed as ‘self-assessmen’ is […]
Water Resources Development Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Bombay High Court) When the material on record is perused it becomes clear that in the reply to the show cause notice itself the appellant had stated that in view of exemption Notification No.74/1993 which was applicable to it till 31.3.1996, the appellant was not aware of […]
Refund is also available when the inter-State or intra-State supply made by a taxpayer, is subsequently found by taxpayer himself as intra-State and inter-State respectively, therefore, the matter may be remitted to the concerned appellate authority for the consideration of his claim/application made under sub-rule (1) of Rule 89 of the Rules, 2017
Schneider Electric India Pvt.Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court) Rule 8 of the TNVAT Rules, 2007 prescribes a method of determination of ‘taxable turnover‘ for the purpose of payment of tax. It is not to be read to mean that CST ‘turnover’ is to be included either for determination of tax liability under […]
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the royalty payment is tax and not consideration in the context of the privilege parted by the State allowing the petitioner and others to mine sand. That being the nature of the payment made by the petitioner, the same is not amenable to GST as it is not consideration either for sale of goods or service provided.
Small Industries Development Bank of India Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Bombay High Court) Bombay high court in income tax matter in case of SIDBI vs CBDT … Explaining at length operative impact of non obstante clause A non-obstante clause is generally appended to a Section with a view to give the enacting part […]
Bombay HC’s stern remarks on casual approach by Revenue in Amrutlal V. Rukhana Vs. Rao Ranvijay Singh, CIT. Lack of assistance results in loss of public money.
That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner’s case and after going through the facts of the Petitioner’s case hold and declare that impugned circular no. 125/44/201-GST dated 18.11.2019 in so far as it creates a condition that the refund application has to be filed online only as being wholly beyond the parent provisions (i.e. Section 54, section 16 and section 168(1) of CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017) and hence, ultra vires the Act;
Trivedi And Sons Pvt. Limited Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) The petitioner has attached the screenshot showing the invoices uploaded on the portal. Though the petitioner was unable to file TRAN-1 due to technical glitches, yet the petitioner had filed grievances dated 13th April, 2018 and 20th April, 2018 on the portal. Thereafter, […]
It is said that they have issued fake invoices in the name of eight non-existent and fictitious business entities without physical movement of the goods and both being defacto operators have lodged claim of wrongful utilization of bogus ITC on the strength of fake invoices without physical receipt of the goods.
