The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Shri Nandhi Dhall Mills India Pvt. Ltd. v. Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGST & Ors. [W.P. No. 5192 of 2020 and WMP. No. 6135 of 2020] directed the Revenue Department to refund the amount of INR 2 crore collected from the assessee during the investigation. Held that, merely because the […]
Assessee had to exhaust the statutory remedy provided under the Act before filing writ petition challenging the levy of service tax passed on a deceased person.
Sasi Anand Spinning Mills India P Ltd. Vs State of Tamil Nadu (Madras High Court) The Appellant State and the Revenue Authorities are directed not to restrict the use of ‘C’ Forms for the inter-State purchases of six commodities by the Respondent/Assessees and other registered Dealers at concessional rate of tax and they are further […]
Refund of excise duty paid under protest if any borne by assessee had to be made only within a period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 notwithstanding the fact that assessee became aware of the wrong payment of tax only after the Central Board of Excise and Customs issued clarification bearing reference Order No. 2/1/2002-ST dated 24.4.2002. Thus, the period prescribed under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 had expired long before the above were clarification was issued.
CIT Vs Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited (Madras High court) It is abundantly clear from Sub-Section (2) of Section 80IA that an assessee who is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA has the option to choose the initial/first year from which it may desire the claim of deduction for ten consecutive years, out of […]
CIT Vs M. Ranjan Rao (Madras High Court) The Supreme Court in Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd vs. CIT [ 1964] 53 ITR 283 has brought out a dichotomy between receipt of compensation by an assessee for loss of agency and receipt of compensation attributable to the negative/restrictive covenant. If the compensation is received for […]
Where the sale transaction is on principal to principal basis, merely because a discount was passed by the manufacturer to the assessee, that may not be construed as commission and therefore, it cannot be the subject matter of levy of service tax.
AO did conduct an enquiry, called for details, the details were produced and thereafter, the assessment was completed. Therefore, the finding of the PCIT was erroneous, consequently, assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not sustainable. Also, there was no requirement in law to maintain separate books of account for claiming deduction under section 10A. However, since the deductions under these sections were available only to the eligible units, AO might call for such details or information pertaining to different units to verify the claim and quantum of exemption, if so required.
Sham Interiors Vs Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Madras High Court) The proviso to Section 24(3) of Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 specifically requires that the dealer be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard prior to framing of an assessment. Such reasonable opportunity, Courts have been consistently held, must include an opportunity of personal hearing. […]
BNP Paribas Global Securities Operations Private Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Madras High Court) The Madras High Court allowed the benefit of Cenvat refund to the taxpayer as the credit of duty was not able to use after the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST). The petitioner, BNP […]
