The reasons recorded do not indicate that the same has been issued on the basis of audit objection. Therefore as held by this Court in Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. R.B. Wadkar 6, one cannot go behind the reasons recorded in support of the notice to infer that he has acted on the basis of audit objection.
Margins derived on export of parts to AE are not comparable with the margins derived from sales made in the domestic market. Besides, on facts, it was also found that not only the parts and finished goods are not comparable, but the class of customers to whom they sold is also different.
Mr. Milind Gawai, Commissioner of Central Tax Pune-I Commissionerate in his additional affidavit-in-reply filed in Writ Petition (St.) No.2230 of 2018 has, firstly, indicated that the system error or fault or what is called IT related glitch would be a grievance definitely looked into and is being looked into by Grievance Redressal Committee.
Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) Vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) The allegations with regard to the CIT(A) mentioning of incorrect dates in the order sheet and the office of the CIT[E] threatening to attach the Petitioner’s bank account and reopen Assessments for the last two years in case it fails to deposit the amount of […]
A party cannot be called upon to perform an impossible Act i.e. to comply with a provision not in force at the relevant time but introduced later by retrospective amendment. S. 40(a)(i) dis allowance can be made only if the royalty falls under Explanation 2 to s. 9(1)(vi) but not if it falls under Explanation 6 to s. 9(1)(vi)
JCB India Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Bombay High Court upheld the Constitutional validity of One Year Limitation for GST Transitional Credit under Section 140(3)(iv) of the CGST Act, 2017. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT / ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:- 1. All these petitions were heard together and are being disposed […]
Any lease or letting out of a building, including commercial, industrial or residential complex for business, either wholly or partly is a supply of service. It is settled law that such provisions in a taxing statute would have to be read together and harmoniously in order to understand the nature of the levy, the object and purpose of its imposition.
It cannot be a universal rule that once an appeal from the order of the Tribunal has been admitted in the quantum proceedings by High Court, then, ipso facto the issue is a debatable issue warranting deletion of penalty by the Tribunal.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned order dated 28th July, 2017 to the extent it allows the Revenue’s application for rectification, is without jurisdiction. This is so as it amounts to review of its order dated 6th June, 2016 which had been passed in an appeal for Assessment Year 2004 05 after due consideration of the very issue. In any case, the issue raised is a debatable issue. Therefore, outside the scope of rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act.
These appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common Judgment as the issue which arises in these appeals is more or less same. So far as CEXA No.89 of 2008 is concerned, it takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 22nd August 2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (for short the Appellate Tribunal)
