SARFAESI Act provides only secured creditors to initiate action against the borrower and a demand made by a person or legal entity who was not the secured creditor was definitely prejudicial to the interest of assessee.
Hon’ble Patna High Court held that ITC availed but not utilized for tax payment doesn’t invite penal consequences of Section 73 of CGST Act, 2017 and interest cannot be recovered on mere availment of ITC which was not utilized
M/s. Amit Cotton Industries vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Gujarat High Court) Circular cannot run contrary to Statutory Provisions –Guj HC orders grant of IGST Refund. Facts: Writ-applicant had exported goods in July 2017. It is the case of the writ-applicant that it is eligible to seek refund of the IGST in accordance with the […]
Red Coin Paper Product Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Gujarat High Court) According to the writ applicant, the inaction on the part of the authority in not granting credit of input tax credit to the electronic credit ledger even after rejection of the refund claimed for the period of May, 2018, June, 2018 and July, […]
Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) The Petitioner’s grievance is that the Respondents are not issuing Form C in respect of its purchase of natural gas from Gujrat. This is used in the manufacture of polyester staple fibre. Primarily, the contention of the Petitioner is that the same […]
Sri Krishna Traders Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The writ-applicant is operating from the State of Tamil Nadu. It appears that the consignment of betel nuts was being transported from Vellor, State of Tamil Nadu, to Delhi. While the goods were in transit and passing through the State of Gujarat, the vehicle was […]
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. JWC Logistics Park Pvt Ltd (Bombay High Court) HC dismissed the Revenue’s Appeal before it by holding that the Container Freight Station (CFS) run by the respondent – assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act as an infrastructure facility. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / […]
Expenditure on renovation of building taken on lease had to be treated as capital expenditure in view of Expln. 1 to section 32(1), even if assessee was not owner of such building during the period of occupation.
The Larger Bench (LB) of Bombay HC rules in favour of Revenue, holds that cash refund u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not permissible when CENVAT Credit on inputs remains unutilized on account of closure of manufacturing unit or inability to utilize input credit.
Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected the plea that proceedings under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, relating to summons, can only be taken recourse to after decision under Section 73, relating to demand of tax. The High Court in this regard declined to quash the notice for personal hearing.
