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 ...
Tribunal opined that the alleged non-payment cannot be called as willful or intentional act of the appellant to evade the payment of duty. Lastly, it was adjudged that it is the burden of the Revenue to prove whether the Assessee has intended to conduct evasion.
Sainath Rajkumar Sarode And Others Vs State of Maharashtra And Others (Bombay High Court) Sainath Rajkumar Sarode (Petitioner) has been filed seeking directions for the recovery of arrears due to the Petitioners under a Recovery Warrant dated October 15, 2018 passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority against Respondent Nos. 4 to 7. In […]
In Ravi Parthasarthy and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu [CRL. O.P. NOS. 3730, 4227, 4095 & 11206 OF 2021 CRL. M.P. NOS. 6647, 6649, 2218, 2601, 2679, 3388, 6708 & 6709 OF 2021 W.P. NO. 1397 OF 2021 AND W.M.P. NO. 5917 OF 2021 dated August 31, 2021]], Ravi Parthasarthy (Petitioner No. 1), Hari […]
In Amit Haresh Kumar Mehta v. Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI [Cr. M. A. No. 1486/2021 dated August 11, 2021], Amit Haresh Kumar Mehta (the Applicant) has filed the current application seeking an Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C). The Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI (“the Respondent) has contended […]
The Petitioner counsel contested that the Respondent No. 3, in most arbitrary manner and without application of mind, has passed the impugned order dated March 26, 2021 in complete violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
The tax authorities must make a clear distinction between deliberate tax evasion and technical or minor defects which manifest no intention to evade tax. When the IGST liability has been fully discharged, no intention can be attributed on part of the petitioner to evade tax. In the present case, therefore, we would release the machinery upon the petitioner filing an undertaking before this Court that eventually subject to appeal and further right to challenge the order of assessment, if any tax or penalty liability is crystallized, the petitioner would discharge the same.
The Petitioner was alleged of unjustly availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) on fake invoices and E-way bills alongside Mr. Amit Kumar (Co-accused). While seeking bail, the Petitioner contended that he has been in custody for a month, as on date, with effect from July 19, 2021 and therefore, his further custodial detention is absolutely not necessary in the interest of investigation of the case.
Observed that the term Royalty has always been construed to be a compensation paid for rights and privileges paid to the grantee. In the current case, the charges paid for use of controlled release of water were for the privileges enjoyed by the Appellant and for such a privilege, the charges and royalty are perfectly justified.
Directorate General of GST Intelligence Vs Pankaj Agarwal (Jharkhand High Court) Individual avoiding appearance before competent authority without any just excuse cannot escape coercive action including arrest Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand by an order dated July 09, 2021, observed that section 69 read with section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, […]
The Applicant is accused of procuring bogus bills from companies that did not exist in order to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) and hence was taken into Judicial Custody (JC). The Applicant thereby has contended that the companies in question have ceased to manufacture goods but have not ceased to exist in entirety. Furthermore, the Applicant also contended that he was not provided with any reason or grounds before his arrest and hence, the Applicant is entitled to bail.
