Goods and Services Tax : Detailed clarifications on GST Amnesty Scheme under Section 128A and Rule 164 of CGST Rules, covering waivers, application process...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras HC rules failure to register under GST law constitutes deliberate tax evasion. Case highlights tax liability, penalties, an...
Goods and Services Tax : Bombay HC ruled that GST refund deficiencies must be communicated via Form GST RFD-03. Failure to issue it led to the refund appli...
Goods and Services Tax : Supreme Court upholds arrest powers under GST and Customs Acts, ensuring procedural safeguards to prevent misuse. Learn about the ...
Income Tax : Learn key updates in the New Income Tax Bill, 2025, effective April 2026. Covers tax year, compliance, deductions, international t...
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 : Delhi High Court sets aside ITC denial due to incorrect GSTN on invoices, ruling in favor of B Braun Medical India Pvt. Ltd. in a ...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka High Court rules writ petitions cannot challenge tax intimations issued under Section 73(5) of CGST Act before a show ca...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court rules IGST refund cannot be denied for exports qualifying as zero-rated supply, even when higher duty drawback r...
Goods and Services Tax : Delhi High Court rules that GST law does not prohibit fresh registration after cancellation. Assessee granted liberty to reapply u...
Goods and Services Tax : Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that GST orders issued without a DIN are invalid, citing CBIC Circular and Supreme Court precedent...
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 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Barge charges were not includible in the assessable value of imported goods and the amount collected by Revenue as Barge charges needs to be refunded along with interest.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on the decision in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur II Vs. Super Syncotex (India Ltd.)[2014 301 ELT 273 (S.C.)], held that after July 1, 2000, Sales tax portion collected but not paid to State Government on account of incentive scheme will form part of the transaction value of excisable goods and observed that:
On coating uncoated paper, an article with different name commercially may have emerged but it is not a distinct article with different character or use and therefore no manufacturing process was involved when uncoated printing and writing paper is coated.
Issue involved in the instant case was, whether penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Credit Rules/ Rule 13 of the Credit Rules, 2002 and Section 11AC of the Excise Act is leviable, when the Department denied the irregular Cenvat credit taken by Flextronics Technologies (India) (P.) Ltd. (‘the Respondent’ or “’the Assessee’) after audit was conducted at their premises.
Facts of the case are that, Srinivasa Enterprises (‘the Petitioner’ or ‘the Assessee’) rented out its property to State VAT Department and collected Service tax thereon and paid same to Service Tax Department. Later on, the Assessee and State VAT Department came to know that renting of immovable property to State Government (VAT Department) was not taxable.
No Mandatory Pre-deposit for pursuing the Appellate remedy before the CESTAT as right of appeal for any case instituted prior to August 6, 2014 and such case is governed by the law prevailing at the date of institution of the suit or proceeding
A raid under Section 82 of the Finance Act was carried out in the premises of the Exman Security Services Pvt. Ltd. (the Petitioner) on March 25, 2014. Statement under Section 14 of the Excise Act was recorded of the Managing Director of the Petitioner wherein it was submitted that Service tax liability of the Petitioner exist but amount calculation will be provided later.
In the Union Budget, 2015 vide Notification No. 06/2015-C.E. (N.T.) dated March 1, 2015 (Effective from March 1, 2015), Export goods have been defined by inserting a Clause (1A) in Explanation 1 to Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which is reproduced as under:
Cenvat credit allowed on civil construction services for construction of factory shed, which is falling under setting up of factory premises- Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III, Gurgaon Vs. KML Molding [2015-VIL-171-CESTAT-DEL-CE]
Investigation of the Appellant was initiated on November 26, 2007 by the officers of DGCEI and it was alleged that the financial support given to Appellant by RCM in terms of the Master Service Agreement dated April 10, 2007 (the Agreement) was in the nature of advance for the taxable services rendered or to be rendered by the Appellant to RCM and is required to be set off against the bills that would be raised later by the Appellant on RCM.
