Andhra Pradesh High Court held that alcoholic liquor for human consumption doesnt constitute food/ food product falling within Chapter 1 to 22 and hence liable to tax @ 18% in terms of notification no. 6/2021- Central Tax (Rate) dated 30.09.2021
Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the law does not compel a man to do things which he cannot possibly perform and it was held that Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017, deals with a procedure for claiming refund, but requiring them to produce shipping bills, as proof of export cannot be made applicable to electricity, as it is impossible to produce shipping bill for export of electricity, since the Custom Law does not refer to electricity and shipping bill is a Customs document.
Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara General Merchants and Commission Agents Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court) It is true that Rule 26(1) specifies that all applications including the appeals which are required to be submitted under the provisions of these Rules shall be so submitted electronically with a digital signature certificate or through e-signature […]
Held that there is no provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, providing for a review of an order passed under Section 11 of the Act.
Since the impugned order of rejecting the refund claim was passed on 23.11.2020 and this Circular came to be issued on 25.09.2021 giving a clarification as to the date for claiming refund under Section 89 of the CGST Act, and Section 19 of the IGST Act, 2017, therefore, the matter was remanded back to the authority to deal with the refund application in the light of the Circular No.162/18/2021-GST dated 25.09.2021, issued more particularly with regard to the applicability of the Circular issued by the Government, and then pass orders in accordance with law.
Gandhar Oil Refinery (India) Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh High Court) A perusal of material on record would show that GST refund application came to be made by the petitioner was on 22.09.2021, for the Tax period May, 2018 to May, 2019. Though, learned Government Pleader would contend that the said […]
Assessee bank was jointly and severally liable for payment of the amount of gratuity to the employee alongwith the existing employer as per the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act
The controversy revolves around the word ‘derived’ and the word ‘industrial undertaking’. The question is whether the interest paid on delayed payments form part of profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking?
Inspection/Search by Assistant Commissioner (ST) is valid on basis of authorization by Chief Commissioner under section 2(91) of the GST Act
Navya Foods (P.) Ltd. Vs Superintendent of Central Tax (Andhra Pradesh High Court) A perusal of Rule 107 & 108 of the CGST Rules make it clear that the appeal is required to be filed in an electronic mode only and if any other mode is prescribed, then, the same is required to be notified […]
