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 ...
The Supreme Court ruled that duty-free imports under export incentive licences cannot be denied without evidence of fraud. Valid licences and verified exports were held sufficient to retain benefits.
The Court held that a buyer cannot be saddled with purchase tax merely because the seller failed to remit tax when the transaction was otherwise taxable at the seller’s end.
The Court held that alleged overlap between State and Central GST proceedings involves factual scrutiny, not a pure legal issue. Taxpayers must pursue statutory appeals instead of writ remedies.
The Karnataka High Court held that blocking electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A without a prior hearing and independent reasons violates natural justice and is unsustainable in law.
The court ruled that genuine purchasers cannot lose ITC because a supplier failed to deposit GST. Section 16(2)(c) must be applied only to fraudulent or collusive cases.
The Court ruled that issuing deficiency memos beyond 15 days is contrary to GST law. Tax authorities must adhere strictly to timelines and compensate taxpayers with statutory interest for delays.
The Supreme Court affirmed that a single SCN covering several years is valid where fraudulent ITC patterns span periods, enabling holistic investigation under the CGST Act.
The Court ruled that issuing an SCN before the pre-SCN reply period expires violates natural justice. The key takeaway is that authorities must allow the full reply window before initiating adjudication.
This decision clarifies that affiliation and related functions lack commercial intent and consideration. As a result, GST cannot be imposed on such statutory activities.
The judgment quashed GST demands raised after resolution plan approval for earlier periods. It reinforces that authorities must submit claims during CIRP or lose the right to recover.
