Goods and Services Tax : Limitation start from date when Impugned Order in Form DRC 07 uploaded on portal and not from date of detailed order: Allahabad Hi...
Goods and Services Tax : The issue was denial of ITC transfer due to different State registrations of entities. The Court ruled that no such restriction ex...
Goods and Services Tax : The Court ruled that interest cannot be imposed in adjudication if it was not specified in the show cause notice. The decision rei...
Goods and Services Tax : The issue involved taxation of intermediary services based on supplier location. The amendment shifts place of supply to recipient...
Goods and Services Tax : Failure to serve notices at the updated registered address invalidates GST proceedings. The Court emphasized strict adherence to p...
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 court examined whether tax paid during investigation can be treated as voluntary. It ruled that authorities must investigate c...
Goods and Services Tax : The case addressed denial of refund of VAT pre-deposit made through ITC. The Court held that Section 142(6) mandates cash refund a...
Goods and Services Tax : Gauhati High Court rules GSTR-1 vs GSTR-3B mismatch from clerical errors cannot trigger automatic tax recovery without Rule 88C pr...
Goods and Services Tax : India cuts excise duty on petrol and diesel to offset global oil price surge amid war. Move aims to reduce fuel costs, curb inflat...
Goods and Services Tax : The issue involved inability to access documents leading to ex parte assessment. The Court granted interim relief by reducing the ...
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 ...
BRG Iron & Steel Co. (P.) Ltd. (the Petitioner) is a two star export house status holder. The Additional DGFT vide letter dated May 31, 2013 informed that the Petitioner entitlement under the Advance Authorization dated May 9, 2012, was limited to a sum of Rs. 38,83,52,050/- instead of Rs. 77,03,73,810/-.
Devki Nandan J Gupta (the Appellant) filed two SAD Refund claims of Rs. 21,92,938/- and Rs. 6,05,866/- on May 6, 2013 (Refund Claim 1) and May 24, 2013 (Refund Claim 2) respectively in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated September 14, 2007 (the Notification).
The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai held that for no reason, the Revenue has retained the pre-deposit amount of the Appellants for more than 2 years after passing of the Order. Further, the Revenue neither filed an appeal against the Order nor obtained any stay, therefore, it is clear case of harassment to the Appellants that the legitimate claim of the Appellants has not been granted.
In the instant case, the Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata vide its Order dated April 30, 2013 directed the Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd. (the Appellant) to make pre-deposit of 25% of the Cenvat Credit involved in the case within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on July 15, 2013.
In the instant case, Jubiliant Engineering (the Appellant) was 100% Export Oriented Units (EOU) engaged in manufacturing of valve assemblies falling under the Chapter 8481 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Though the Appellant was not required to pay duty on the export goods
In the present case, Tata Chemicals Ltd. (the Appellant) filed eleven Refund claims amounting to Rs. 1,26,78,767/- during the period September 1997 to December 1999. However, the Refund claims were initially rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
Suncity Art Exporters (the Appellant) were exporters of handicrafts and were entitled to Refund of Service tax paid on the various specified input services in terms of Notification No. 17/09-ST dated July 7, 2009.
In the instant case, Kuttukaran Trading Ventures (the Assessee) was engaged in the business of reconditioning engines and parts thereof and repairs of other parts of vehicles of all brands. The Assessee did not have any authorization from any manufacturer of vehicles/ parts for providing post-sale service to buyers.
The issue of taxability of out-of-pocket expenses has always been a matter of litigation. Before April, 2006 there was no specific provision to this effect. However, from April 19, 2006 onwards, with the introduction of the Valuation Rules, Service tax is applicable on gross consideration including all expenses barring the expenses incurred as pure agent.
TATA Engineering and Locomotive Co.Ltd.(Now Known as TATA Motors Ltd.)[the Appellant or the Company] is a manufacturer of Motor Vehicles and also engaged in the business of hire finance of Motor Vehicles.
