Considering the submissions made by all the parties, and the orders placed before me in relation to stay of similar notices of Service Tax audit by the different High Courts, I am of the prima facie view that the impugned notices dated December 13, 2018 and April 25, 2019 should be stayed till June 12, 2020 or until further orders whichever is earlier.
On the second issue in the petition, it was stated that in the absence of any finding about petitioners mala fide intention, connivance or wrongful association with the suppliers, no liability can be imposed on it on the principle of vicarious liability on account of fraudulent conduct of the suppliers, who have obtained registration on the basis of fictitious documents.
Arvind Kumar Munka Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court) This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the petitioner who has prayed for his enlargement on bail on any conditions. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused along with other accused persons […]
Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr. (Calcutta High Court) By an amendment an existing Act is supplemented by new provisions adding to or subtracting from it. It is usual that parts of the existing Act are retained. Say for example, there is a provision in the existing Act for penalty in […]
Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) In the present case learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, in transition to GST regime there was clerical error made by his client assessee, resulting in claim of short credit on transition. Since it is by result of clerical […]
On facts, case of petitioner is that it could not attempt to file GST TRAN –1 form on GST portal because his own system was down. On 9th January, 2018, deadline having expired on 27th December, 2017, petitioner said so to Revenue. Petitioner then has obtained a report, upon forensic examination of his system, having provided password, which report confirms petitioner’s contention. Less said about the instructions, in context of such facts, as being removed from them, the better.
As nature of “interest subsidy and power” depends on the purpose for which it was given, hence, in assessee’s case it was ‘capital’ in nature not liable to tax because the entire reason behind receiving the subsidy was setting up of plant in the backward region of West Bengal, namely, Bankura.
Dinabandhu Mondal & Ors. Vs Laxmi Rani Mondal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) The respondents have raised serious doubt over the authenticity of the said deed of gift because of the fact that it was registered after the death of the donor. However, well established is the law that it is not necessary for the […]
Petitioner Rudra Autoparts Distributor filed writ petition praying to allow filing of form GST Tran 1 to enable it to claim transitional credit of eligible duties in respect of inputs held in stock on the appointed day in terms of Section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
Recently, the issue of levibility of Service Tax on reimbursements on electricity expenses received from the occupants of a complex came before a Single Member Bench of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the levy of Service Tax on such transactions.
