No Sec. 68 additions solely based on MOU found during search In Premises Of Third Party if assessee wasn’t even remotely connected to MOU
Order cancelling petitioner’s GST registration passed in violation of principles of natural justice, is liable to be set aside.
Delhi High Court held that right to use radio frequency spectrum or its subsequent transfer covered under Clause (j) of Section 66E which was effective from 14.05.2016. Accordingly, compensation received during Financial Year 2015-2016 not leviable to service tax.
Delhi High Court held that as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to meet the case that it was not entitled to refund as the services provided by it was as an intermediary. Matter is remanded back to Appellate Authority as the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
The respondent has since revoked the suspension of the petitioner’s registration and the same is active. It is also stated that the respondent has issued a demand notice dated 15.02.2023 under Section 73(5) raising a demand of ₹6,37,916.00/-. The said demand notice also states that in the event the demand is not paid, a Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1) would be issued.
Sakshi Bahl & Anr. Vs. Principal Additional Director General (Delhi High Court) HC held that based on facts and documents summitted it is clear that the petitioners are not taxable persons. The power under Section 83 of the Act, to provisionally attach assets or bank accounts is limited to attaching the bank accounts and assets […]
Delhi High Court held that revised return as well as chartered accountant’s certificate supports the typographical error. Accordingly, OHA directed to determine correct turnover and tax liability thereon.
Delhi High Court held that there is no requirement to file a fresh claim under DVAT 21 as the claim of refund was embedded by the assessee in its return.
Delhi High Court held that denial of refund of accumulated ITC on the ground that information regarding transfer of business and other returns to establish the transfer of stocks and capital goods not submitted is unacceptable.
Delhi High Court held that the re-insurance services were not excluded from the definition of ‘input service’ as defined under Section 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 01.04.2011.
