Petitioner has challenged second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 140 of the Gujarat goods and service tax act, 2017 under which certain restrictions have been imposed on a dealer for taking tax credit under then the VAT act. counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provision deprives a dealer to his vested right and thus, the statute acts retrospectively and also imposes an unreasonable restriction.
M/s Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Constitutional validity and vires of Second proviso to Section 140(1) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Constitutional validity and vires of Rule 117 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and Form GST Tran-1 issued in relation thereto […]
Remark Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The petitioners are registered dealers under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and are engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of wheat flour, meslin flour, cereal flours etc. The GST authorities had conducted a search at the business premises of […]
An undertaking like the assessee, which derives profits from the business of processing, preservation and packaging of fruits or vegetables would be entitled to deduction under section 80IB(11A) of the Act from the initial assessment year, viz. the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which it begins such business.
The petitioner’s challenge has principally three elements viz., [a] having paid the tax under IGST Act on the entire value of imports; inclusive of the ocean freight, the petitioner cannot be asked to pay tax on the ocean freight all over again under a different notification;
Where the value of stock shown to bank for purpose of availing of higher credit facility was based on market rate and not at cost price but there was no difference in quantitative details, no addition under section 69B could be made.
Two-judge bench of the Gujarat High Court comprising Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice A.Y. Kogje in the case of Meena Krishna Agarwal Versus Assistant Commissioner decided that Tax Arrears of a deceased assessee cannot be recovered out of the personal properties of wife.
Where revision petition was filed by assessee in respect of its individual and also for firm’s return to claim expenses in firm’s return which were claimed in its personal return, CIT was not justified in dismissing revision application without looking into the matter, therefore, it was remanded back to CIT to consider afresh.
In this case the assessee had imported coal prior to the introduction of goods and service tax regime and had already paid clean energy cess at the prescribed rate. On the stock which the petitioner had not cleared, no credit had been allowed on such cess and Department again asked to pay fresh cess under the Goods and Service Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017. In view of the fact that the validity of a Union legislation is questioned, court ordered for notice to be issued.
Where assessee was earning exempt income and no dis allowance was made by it and AO was of view that assessee failed to prove that own funds were utilized for investment, therefore, AO proceeded to compute dis allowance of interest paid on borrowed funds, however, it ignored the interest income earned by assessee, AO was not justified since for the purpose of dis allowance net interest expenses were to be taken.
