Observing that the adjudicating authority had not come to the conclusion that the product sold was entirely different and there was nothing on record to disbelief the Chartered Accountant’s certificate stating that both the products were one and the same, Madras High Court has allowed the appeal against the CESTAT Order denying SAD refund.
If the provisions are substantive in nature then the same cannot be applied Retrospectively to the pending cases. However, if the provisions are procedural in nature then the same has to be applied to all the cases, including the one pending before the Court.
M/s. Sulabh International Social Service Organization Vs Union of India (Jharkhand High Court) Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court igranted stay (status quo) to the proceedings initiated under Service Tax after introduction of GST by issuing notice, summons and visit of officers after taking into account one of the main contention that Service Tax Rules […]
Payment of salaries made to nuns, sisters, priests or fathers for rendering their services as Teachers in schools which receive Grant-in-aid from the State Government under the Grant-in-Aid Schemes and bound by the Canon Law were liable for tax deduction under section 192 as neither Income Tax Department nor State Government had anything to do with the religious character of the Institution, might be Teachers or Nuns or Missionaries and therefore, they could not take a stand for not making the tax deduction at source in view of the Canon Law.
Pr. CIT Vs. M/s ITD Cemindia JV (Bombay High Court) The employees and personnel deputed by the company giving such workers on loan to the assessee company continued to be the employer, the assessee merely reimbursed the expenditure in terms of salary structure of the employees to the employer company. There was, therefore, no question […]
The writ petition is directed against the order passed under Section 73 (9) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 dated 21.1.2015 by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, NOIDA and the consequential order of penalty and interest thereof. The aforesaid order is appellable under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act.
The parameters to be taken into account in considering the grant of stay of disputed demandare well settled – the existence of a prima facie case, financial stringency and the balance of ‘Financial stringency’ would include within its ambit the question of ‘irreparable injury’ and ‘undue hardship’ as well.
Grundfos Pumpas India Ltd. Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) The appellate authority, after considering the submissions made by the Assessee as well as the detailed note submitted by the Assessee, held that the provision has been made by the Assessee on a scientific basis and it is an ascertained liability. Examining the nature of business […]
SRS Travels/Logistics Vs Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) Section 129 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 empowers detention and seizure of the vehicle that was used for transportation of goods in question and therefore, the order cannot be faltered. However, having argued the matter for some time resisting the […]
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision on the representation dated 13.3.2019 (Annexure P-10), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
