Goods and Services Tax : Explore the Madras High Court judgment in Amarjyothi Carrying Corporation v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) on entitlement to persona...
Goods and Services Tax : Discover how the Odisha AAR allows ITC on exempt services where the supplier has charged GST. Understand conditions and implicatio...
Goods and Services Tax : In M/s. THDC India Ltd, Uttarakhand AAR ruled that government authority services like design engineering and water tank constructi...
Goods and Services Tax : In Piramal Enterprises Ltd v. State of Maharashtra, Bombay HC ruled against revenue's selective interpretation of business transfe...
Goods and Services Tax : Analysis of legal implications when Revenue department initiates proceedings against legal heirs of deceased taxpayer, as per Honâ...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore Supreme Court's scrutiny of whether supplying cranes for services like loading, unloading, lifting, and shifting qualifies...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the case of Pradeep Kanthed v. Union of India where the Supreme Court issues notice to the Finance Ministry regarding the ...
Goods and Services Tax : Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax & Ors Vs Safari Retreats Private Limited & Ors (Supreme Court of India) The ...
Goods and Services Tax : The 45th meeting of Goods and Services Tax Council (“GST Council”) is scheduled to be held on September 17, 2021. The Ministry...
Custom Duty, Income Tax : The Karnataka High Court in M/s Pellagic Food Ingredients Private Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 14737/2021[T-CUS] issu...
Service Tax : Zest Buildtek Promotors Vs Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Madras High Court)Issuance of attachment order under provi...
Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad HC rules that failing to record reasons in INS-01 before initiating a search under Section 67 of CGST Act invalidates th...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court rules that appeals cannot be dismissed for procedural lapses, emphasizing timely filing. Key case: Indian Potash...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the Kerala High Court ruling on luxury tax applicability to services at Ayurveda Centre, Beauty Parlor, and Convention Cen...
Goods and Services Tax : The Gujarat High Court granted interim relief to P.R. Trading, halting coercive GST recovery labeled as voluntary. The matter is s...
Excise Duty : Notification No. 32/2015-Central Excise Dated- 4th June, 2015 Ethanol produced from molasses generated from cane crushed in the ...
Service Tax : Circular No. 184/3/2015-ST Dated the 3rd June, 2015 It is further clarified that exemption from service tax still continues to ser...
Custom Duty : the floods in the State of Jammu and Kashmir (the State) from whole of the duty as specified under the First Schedule and whole of...
Excise Duty : Grants exemption from Basic Excise Duty to goods donated or purchased out of cash donations for the relief and rehabilitation of p...
Custom Duty : New posts have been created in the rank of Commissioners of Customs in DRI and DGCEI for adjudication of cases as investigated by ...
Respondent was not in a position to defend and justify the action of the Respondent of passing the impugned assessment order in disregard to the aforesaid circular of the CBDT and also the action of the Respondent concerned in passing the impugned assessment order without getting any instruction from the DRP within the time stipulated under the statute.
Benefit of Suo moto extension order passed by the SC for the Covid period cannot be taken by the Department In Gobindo Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. A No. 11578 of 2021 dated October 01, 2021], Gobindo Das (Petitioner) has filed the current writ petition challenging the Provisional Attachment order […]
Appellant filed two different claims of refund for the identical issues of custom duty paid on pilfered goods imported at ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi Port. The refund claims were initially rejected on the ground that goods were pilfered after the order of clearance by the Customs Officer and the said order was challenged.
The AO reopened the assessment of the Assessee after it was observed that the Assessee had not reflected or explained his investment in a hotel project during a survey operation. Thereafter, the Assessee filed an application before the CIT(A) challenging the validity of reopening of assessment, which was subsequently rejected and disposed of by the CIT(A) on the ground that the AO had correctly followed the procedure as contemplated in the IT Act and there was no infirmity in the action of the AO regarding reopening, all of which has been in accordance with law.
The ground for preventive detention is alleged to be that the Petitioner was controlling a syndicate which was involved in effecting fraudulent exports and imports in order to evade Customs duty and earn undue export benefits including Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) refunds through 33 non-existent and/or dummy firms.
Genuine issue of Shares to Shareholders not to be considered under Anti-Abuse Provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 In Income Tax Officer v. Shri Rajeev Ratanlal Tulshyan [I.T.A. No.5748/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 dated October 01, 2021] [along with cross objection filed by Shri Rajeev Ratanlal Tulshyan (the Respondent)], the Income Tax Officer (the Appellant) filed an […]
HC observed that the Respondent has failed to show that the Petitioner as a purchasing dealer deliberately availed the ITC in respect of the transactions with an entity knowing that such an entity was not in existence and on the basis of this observation, the Court revoked the GST Registration Cancellation.
ndhra HC pronounced that, in the facts and circumstances of the given case, a successful tenderer would be required to supply medicines and other goods, which are not exempted under the GST Act, in the process of maintaining SNCUs, and for that reason, all bidders were required to submit GST registration certificates.
UOI contended that since the particular provision has already been challenged and the proceedings are pending across the Country, along with ramifications of huge amounts payable under the CGST Act are involved, it should be appropriate for the Hon’ble Supreme Court to hear the matter.
Appellant contended that CBI Manual does not make it mandatory to conduct a Preliminary Enquiry (PE) before the registration of the FIR. It was stated that a PE cannot be made mandatory for all cases of corruption and is only conducted when the information received is not sufficient to register a regular case.
