The materials in the records before the authorities below corroborate the fact that the petitioners pitched the product in their sale material and advertisements as a mosquito repellent. Various mosquito repelling qualities are identified as defining characteristics of the subject goods in the market.
CIT Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Bombay High Court) In the instant case Tribunal discussed the objects of the assessee i.e.,the respondent and returned a finding of fact that the entire objects are charitable in nature having regard to the meaning of the expression “Charitable purpose” as defined in the Act. Tribunal referred to […]
Assistant commissioner of CGST and Central excise Vs. M/s Sutherland global services (Madras High Court) Madras High Court Division Bench stays order of single judge in Matter relating to transition of education cess, secondary and higher education cess and krishi Kalyan cess into the Gst regime. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT Mr.Raghavan […]
It is a case where a vehicle alongwith goods were seized when it was found carrying goods in violation of the Act of 2017. The petitioner alongwith owner of the goods was served with the notice before seizure of the goods.
Rajah Sir Annamalai Vs CCIT (Madras High Court) The fact that Clause 10 of the Trust Deed states that the fees and charges shall be fixed taking into account the cost of running including future development thereof though without an element of profit motive indicates that the actual intention of the trust is only to […]
Punjab HC refuses to grant Bail in the case where petitioner was alleged to create fake invoices in order to avail the benefits under Input Tax Credit (ITC). Sanjay Dhingra Vs DG GSTI (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
On Appeal High Court held that no GST is leviable under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2007, on the ocean freight for the services provided by a person located in a non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India upto the customs station of clearance in India and the levy and collection of tax of such ocean freight under the impugned Notification Notification No.8 of 2017 – Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 and Notification No. 10 of 2017 – Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 is not permissible in law.
Manambur Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs ITO (Kerala High Court) HC states that the rectification applications will be taken up for consideration by respondent without much delay, and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through authorised representative/counsel, if any, may pass orders thereon without much delay preferably within a period of 4 […]
Suresh Anuradha Vs CIT (Madras High Court) In the given case, the second respondent has demanded the petitioner to pay a sum equivalent to 20% of levied tax on or before 17.01.2020 for entertaining the appeal and stay petition under Section 220(6) of Income Tax Act 1961. Earlier, an assessment order was passed on 11.12.2009 […]
Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has vehemently opposed the bail application. It is contended that petitioner has created fake firms and has fraudulently, transferred input tax to as many as 470 beneficiary parties. Out of which, fifty five parties took fraudulent input tax credit and have now reversed those entries. It is contended that total loss caused to the exchequer is to the tune of Rs. Thirty three crore, out of which, Rs. Thirteen crore has been recovered so far. It is also contended that petitioner avoided service of summons and was arrested from Ajmer.
