Mahadeo Construction Co. Vs Union of India (Jharkhand High Court) High Court held that interest liability under section 50 is although automatic, but it’s computation and demand can be raised only after initiation of Adjudication proceedings under Section 73 or 74 in case the assesse disputes the demand of interest. Whether garnishee proceedings under Section […]
Liability to pay any VAT on the trade discounts / incentives pursuant to bringing in Section 9(5) in JVAT Act was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature, and the same was ultra vires Article 246(1) of the Constitution of India, and could not be sustained in the eyes of law and accordingly, it had to be treated as if never existing in the Statute Book.
In a case where the assessee had wrongly deposited IGST as CGST, the Jharkhand High Court has quashed the letter saddling petitioner company with liability to pay short paid IGST along with interest. The High Court however directed the petitioner to deposit IGST and to claim refund of CGST or adjust the amount wrongly deposited under CGST for future liability of CGST.
Tarapore & Company Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court) We find that the petitioner firm had acted absolutely in a bona fide manner, as is also apparent from the impugned order dated 20.11 .2017, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application, and had discharged its tax liability by paying the VAT amount to […]
Godavari Commodities Ltd. Vs Union of India (Jharkhand High Court) In the present case, though it is submitted by learned counsel for CGST that since the tax was paid, Section 73 (1) of the Act shall not be attracted in the case of the petitioner, but the fact remains that the tax was not paid […]
Godavari Commodities Ltd. Vs Union of India (Jharkhand High Court) In the present case, though it is submitted by learned counsel for CGST that since the tax was paid, Section 73 (1) of the Act shall not be attracted in the case of the petitioner, but the fact remains that the tax was not paid […]
The writ petitioners have filed these applications for getting the transitional input tax credits, for which Form GST TRAN-I was filled up by them.
M/s. Sulabh International Social Service Organization Vs Union of India (Jharkhand High Court) Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court igranted stay (status quo) to the proceedings initiated under Service Tax after introduction of GST by issuing notice, summons and visit of officers after taking into account one of the main contention that Service Tax Rules […]
The petitioner is an accused for allegedly committing offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. There is an allegation against this petitioner that he illegally availed Input Tax Credit. The petitioner is in custody since 23.08.2018. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer for bail and submits that this petitioner has taken the benefit of about Rs. 30 crores illegally by way of Input Tax Credit.
We are of the considered opinion that the Finance Act, 2000 has made the complete procedure in its section 117. Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 reads as under: 117. Validation of certain action taken under Service Tax Rules. – Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, Tribunal or other authority, sub-clauses (xii) and (xvii) of clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of rule 2 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Service Tax (Amendment) Rules, 1998 shall be deemed to be valid and to have always been valid as if the said sub-clauses had been in force at all material times and accordingly,-
