I, therefore, dispose of this Writ Petition holding that the respondent will not invoke the bank guarantee for three months. In the meanwhile the petitioner may make all efforts before the 7th respondent to get an interim protection, pending appeal — adjudication.
Schwing Stetter India Ptd. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Madras High Court) The sum and substance of the prayer of the petitioners is that they are unable to upload Form GST TRAN-1 to take credit of the Input Tax /Service Tax/Central Excise Duty availed by them at the time of migration within […]
The adjudication proceedings on the goods detained / seized should be completed expeditiously as the law itself provides for release of goods on fulfilment of prescribed condition.
Asstt. STO Vs Indus Towers Ltd. (Kerala High Court) In the present case the delivery chalan which accompanied the transport is one issued by the assessee respondent, over which the assessee has absolute control and could be subject to manipulation. The assessee having transported the goods with delivery chalan, could very well sell the goods […]
In one of the recent judgment of Kerala High Court in M/S Indus Towers Limited Vs. The Assistant State Tax Officer, it was held that goods cannot be confiscated for every non- compliance of the provisions of the act.
Sunrise Academy of Medical Specialities (India) (P.) Ltd Vs ITO (Kerala High Court) (DB) Any premium received by a Company on sale of shares, in excess of its face value; if the Company is not one in which the public has substantial interest, would be treated as income from other sources, as seen from Section […]
Though the Tribunal has no power u/s 254(2) to condone delay in filing the MA, the High Court has power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to do substantial justice by condoning the delay.
Ms. Webel Technology Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (Calcutta High Court) Petitioner was awarded two contracts for preparation of Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC). The petitioner has suffered the impugned show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner to pay service tax as according to the department, the preparation of EPIC includes taking of photographs of voters […]
The sole contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that after issuance of the notification, all the check posts have to be removed as GST regime has been introduced and, therefore, they cannot restrict or obstruct any of the vehicle from asking them to pay tax on the check posts except the GST.
In the instant case supplies of goods were made by the petitioner to other divisions of MSSL which had a status of EOUs. The pivotal point is that the FTP 2009-2014 conferred a right on the petitioner, who, admittedly, was a DTA supplier, at the relevant point in time, to seek refund of TED, as the supplies had been made to 100% EOUs, albeit, under a non-ICB route.
