Assessee was entitled to claim refund of service tax on composite contract of immovable property including value of land as merely because assessee made the payment, it would not partake the character of service tax and the department could not retain the amount paid by assessee which was in fact not payable by them.
State cannot be allowed to levy life tax on the ex-showroom price shown in the price list, when it is not the actual cost of the vehicle and the life tax has to be levied on the actual cost of the vehicle as paid by the purchaser of the vehicle which can be reflected from the invoice.
In the case of Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Ltd. High Court has directed that to GST Department that in the event interest is not paid under Section 50 thereof, there shall be a direction to respondent to not to initiate any coercive action against the petitioner until further orders.
Raghava Constructions Vs Union of India (Telangana High Court) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the proceedings of letter C.No. V/04/06/2019-Arrears, dated 31.07.2019, issued by 2nd respondent, pending disposal of WP.No.16885 of […]
Hetero Labs Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (Telangana High Court) Demand of duty and interest when delay on part of authorities processing necessary redemption certificate: The assessee was exempted from payment of customs duty by Notification No. 96/2009-Cus. subject to condition that evidence of discharge of export obligation was produced within sixty days of expiry of […]
When the very arrest of the petitioners is not prohibited prior to the completion of the assessment, any coercive action lesser than arrest, can not also be said to be prohibited.
Once it is admitted that credit was available to the petitioner on the date of switch over from VAT regime to GST regime and once it is admitted that the petitioner may be entitled to make a claim for this credit in other modes, we think that the second respondent ought to have given a purposive interpretation to Section 140 of the Act read with Sections 16 to 21 of the Telangana GST Act As he has failed to do the same, the matter requires reconsideration.
M/s. Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (Telangana High Court) No input tax credit if GST returns not filed, and Interest mandatorily payable on gross tax liability on delayed payment of GST- In the case of M/s. Megha Engineering & Infrastructures Ltd. (Writ Petition Number 44517 of 2018), the High Court […]
P.V. Ramana Reddy S/o. P. Shankar Reddy Vs Union of India (Telangana High Court) High Court held that without going deep, that the petitioners have allegedly involved in circular trading with a turnover on paper to the tune of about Rs.1,289.00 crores and a benefit of ITC to the tune of Rs.225.00 crores. The GST […]
Section 74(5) of the Act merely enables the petitioner to pay penalty at 15% on his own accord, in which event the assessing authority cannot thereafter issue a notice seeking recovery of the balance 85% penalty (i.e., penalty equivalent to the tax specified in the notice).
