Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected the plea that proceedings under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, relating to summons, can only be taken recourse to after decision under Section 73, relating to demand of tax. The High Court in this regard declined to quash the notice for personal hearing.
Assessee-company being a ‘willful defaulter’ could not be represented through the lawyers or Chartered Accountants as the personal hearing was available only to borrower Director and Promoter of the alleged default unit.
Non-filing of Income Tax Return by itself would not mean that the complainant had no source of income and thus, no adverse inference can be drawn in this regard only because of absence of Income Tax Return.
Respondent CIT/PCIT directed to refund the entire amount of income tax they have recovered, which was an exempted amount and which the petitioner Army Officer has paid in respect of his disability pension.
U/s. 69 of the GST Act, the Commissioner is having power to arrest if he has reasons to believe that a person has committed an offence specified in Clause (a) or (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the GST Act. Section 132(1) (a), (b) and (c) of GST Act define types of offences and according to which, whoever commits offence of supply of any goods or services without issue of any invoice or issues any invoice or bill without supply of goods or services of both or avails input tax credit using such invoice, shall be punished with imprisonment of term which may extend to 5 years and with fine, if the amount involved is more than Rs.500 Lakhs.
Where assessee was not a member/shareholder of the concerned company, therefore, loan/advance received from such company was not deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e).
M/s Etiam Emedia Limited Vs ITO (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Conclusion: Reopening of assessment was justified as there was specific information available with the authorities that assessee was a dummy concern used to route unaccounted money by way of bogus share application money. It was not a case of mere suspicion, it was a case, wherein […]
As the supply to a DFS by an Indian supplier is not to ‘a place outside India’, therefore, such supplies do not qualify as ‘export of goods’ under GST. Consequently, such supplies cannot be made without payment of duty by furnishing a bond/letter of undertaking (LUT) under rule 96-A of the CGST Rules, 2017.
The activity in question definitely does not have any relation to the principal work of power generation entrusted by the state government to MPPGCL, and therefore the works contract service of construction of residential quarters would attract GST @18% (9% CGST + 9% SGST) in terms of Notification No.11/2017-CT Rate dtd.28.06.2017 and corresponding notification under MPGST Act 2017.
A two-judge bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has asked the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to issue a clarification regarding the leviability of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the goods supplied through the duty-free shops in the International Airports in India.
