Goods and Services Tax : The Gujarat High Court examined whether a taxpayer’s selection of “No” for personal hearing could override the statutory req...
Goods and Services Tax : The Orissa High Court examined whether tax could be demanded after reversal of the disputed ITC. It held that raising a fresh dema...
Goods and Services Tax : The Rajasthan High Court examined whether GST registration could be refused due to non-filing of returns in another State. It held...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court stayed a judgment that held mere uploading of notices and orders on the GST portal does not amount to valid comm...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court refused to bypass the statutory GST appeal mechanism and directed the taxpayer to pursue appellate remedies. How...
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...
Goods and Services Tax : The Gujarat High Court ruled that the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation exclusion must be considered while computing timelines...
Goods and Services Tax : The Delhi High Court held that exoneration under Section 73 does not automatically bar proceedings under Section 74 because both p...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether a single GST show cause notice can cover multiple financial years under Section 7...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court took up a challenge to Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act where ITC was denied despite tax having been paid by the...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court prima facie observed that Section 67(4) permits sealing of premises only when access is denied. It issued notice...
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 ...
Calcutta High Court, in the case of Liakhat Ali Mallick v. State of West Bengal, set aside the order requiring the assessee to make a pre-deposit of 20% of the interest liability. Gain insights into the ruling and its implications for GST cases.
Get insights into the recent CESTAT decision on service tax refund for services consumed outside India. Explore the case of M/s. Aegis Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Surat-I, where the tribunal ruled that services consumed abroad are beyond the scope of service tax, warranting a refund of erroneously paid taxes.
CESTAT overturned the order that had previously confirmed the demand on expenses such as deconsolidation charges, transportation charges, and DO charges. These expenses were initially collected by the assessee from their clients and then paid to the service provider.
CESTAT Delhi held that no service tax is payable as the assessee did not receive any consideration for providing a corporate guarantee.
An in-depth examination of the changes introduced to the GST Appellate Tribunal, the implications of these reforms, and the challenges that remain.
CESTAT held that the utilization of credit by any unit within the same entity would not cause any loss to the Exchequer. This is because the credit disallowed to one unit is proportionally made available to the second unit. From a company’s perspective, the net credit availed and utilized remains unchanged.
CESTAT, Kolkata made a significant ruling regarding the amendment in Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Previous version of the rule stated ‘taken or utilized,’ but it was modified to ‘taken and utilized.’ This alteration in wording clearly indicates the legislative intent to exclude the imposition of interest when the credit has been taken but not utilized.
CESTAT’s decision clarifies that since the rent received by individual co-owners is below the specified threshold, there is no basis for imposing service tax on these amounts.
In Kia Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Madhya Pradesh, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ, affirming GST on inter-state transport of demo vehicles between distinct persons, emphasizing compliance with CGST Act and Rules.
In the case of M/s. SHIDO Pharma v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), the Madras High Court quashed the order passed without providing an opportunity of hearing and directed the Revenue Department to conduct afresh proceedings.
