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 ...
Shukla & Brothers (the Appellant) is a proprietorship firm registered under Service tax under the category of ‘Construction Work’. However, under some confusion and misguidance, the Appellant was issued registration under ST-2 in the category of ‘Civil Structure Construction Work’. The Appellant claimed that the services provided are of maintenance/ sanitation services provided at factory premises of clients, which does not fall within the Service tax net.
The fact that NECL could seek refund of the tax paid as per the State Government Order G.O.Ms. No. 609 dated May 29, 2006, issued in terms of Section 15(1) of the AP VAT Act, will not absolve KPCL of their statutory obligation to deduct TDS;
In the present case, a Thailand based Company, Italian Thai Development Public Company Limited and an Indian Public Company, ITD Cementation India Limited having its place of business in Salt Lake City, Kolkata decided to establish a Joint Venture Organisation – ITD-ITD CEM JV.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide Notification dated February 16, 2015 has issued the Companies (Indian Accounting Standards) Rules, 2015, thereby notifying Roadmap for applicability of Indian Accounting Standards (Ind AS) for compliance by the class of companies specified in the said Rules. Following companies shall comply with the Ind AS for the accounting periods […]
Vibha Publications Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) was engaged in job work of printing material. In the printing process, the plates, chemicals and ink (Impugned Goods) were consumed. The Revenue contended that the value of Impugned Goods consumed in printing process is exigible to Sales tax.
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
