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 ...
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.
Shravan Banarasilal Jejani (the Appellant) is the owner of the residential flats sold to them by the builder who paid Service tax on the residential flats. However, in terms of the Circular No. 108/2/2009-ST dated January 29, 2009 (the Circular), there was no Service tax liability on sale of the residential flats on the Appellant.
CA Bimal Jain The Union Budget, 2015 has proposed an increase in the rate of Service tax from 12.36% to flat 14% with abolishment of Education cess and Secondary & Higher Secondary Education cess. Further pursuing with Mr. Narendra Modi’s Dream of Swachh Bharat, a new Chapter VI has been inserted in the Finance Bill, 2015 […]
Publication of prospectus and making it available to students is ancillary activity to the main and predominant object to impart education and thus Institutions are not ‘dealer’ under VAT. Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Banasthali Vidyapith [2015 (4) TMI 393 – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT]
In the instant case, Bhimli Unit of Alsa Marine And Harvests Ltd. (the Respondent) is a 100 % Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU) engaged in the process of freezing and export of marine products as per the permission accorded by the Department of Industrial Development. The Respondent imported goods without payment of Customs duty and procured indigenous goods without payment of Central Excise duty seeking exemption under Notification No. 13/81 dated February 9, 1981
Redicura Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) is a manufacturer of P&P medicines chargeable to Central Excise duty. For the period April 1, 2003 to October 31, 2003 (impugned period), the Appellant was availing SSI Exemption under Notification No. 9/03-CE dated March 1, 2003 (SSI Notification).
Since, the dispute arose as to whether the Respondent was entitled for concessional rate of duty or not, the Respondent paid normal rate of 15% ad valorem duty and sought for refund of the extra duty paid amounting to Rs. 27,66,970/-.
Dorcas Market Makers Pvt. Ltd. (the Respondent) is engaged in the export of ‘Medimix’ brand of Ayurvedic Toilet Soap, falling under CSH 3401.11.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Respondent filed a rebate claim on June 17, 2008 under Rule 18 of Excise Rules for refund of the duty paid for goods exported during the period July 1, 2006 to January 31, 2007
