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 Department is not allowed to raise new grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, which were not raised before the Commissioner (Appeals)-CC (Sea-Imp.), Chennai Vs. Kwang Sung Brake India Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 585 – CESTAT Chennai]
Where assessee was engaged in development and sale of software etc., activities of Business Consultancy services and Software Implementation services, which have been subject to Service tax, cannot be considered as ‘sale
Transaction would be Inter-state sales where movement of goods is from one State to another in terms of purchase order, even if goods are supplied to common godown of buyer and seller- State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Annamalaiar Mills Ltd. [(2015) 63 taxmann.com 234 (Madras)]
Where assessee was allowed partial exemption from CST in terms of Exemption Notification, reopening of assessments on plea that full CST was collected from customers is not justified- J.K. Tyre & Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan [(2015) 63 taxmann.com 233 (Rajasthan)]
It came to the notice of the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC or the Board) that certain field formations are taking a view that Service tax is payable on services received by the apparel exporters from third party undertaking job work on the premise that the services received by apparel exporters is of manpower supply service, which neither falls under the Negative list nor is specifically exempt. However, trade is of the view that the such services are of job work involving a process amounting to manufacture or production of goods, and thus would fall under the Negative list of services given under Section 66D(f) of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Finance Act) and hence would not attract Service tax.
The Committee headed by the Chief Economic Adviser Dr. Arvind Subramanian , had given its recommendations to the Finance Minister last week, recommending a four-tier rate structure wherein some essential items will be taxed at 12%, gold and precious metals at 2-6%, some so-called sin or demerit goods like luxury cars and tobacco products at 40% and most goods and all services at 17-18%.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai, relying upon the decision in the case of Ketan Motors Ltd. Vs. CC, CE & ST [Final Order No. A/321/2013-WZB/C-1 (CSTB), dated 18-2-2013], held that Section 67 of the Finance Act mandate levy of Service tax on a value or consideration received for rendering the services.
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad, held that a service recipient can only see the Cenvatable document under which Service tax paid/ payable has been indicated. However, it is not the case of the revenue that the service provider does not exist.
CCE Vs. Shrushthi Plastics (P) Ltd. – CESTAT, Chennai, applied the ratio of the Apex court decision in case of Nebulae Health Care Ltd. Vs. CC Chennai [2006-TIOL-1380-CESTAT-MAD], which squarely applies to the instant case
CCE Vs. Control & Switchgears Contactors Ltd. – Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal, wherein it was held that while the Respondent had declared that goods were not meant for retail sale, revenue could not produce any evidence to contrary and hence, duty was rightly paid as per Section 4 of the Excise Act.
