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 instant case, the three Appellants namely Matunga Gymkhana, Tahnee Heights Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. and Mittal Tower Premises Co-Operative Society (the Appellants) were running a club for their members.
Moser Baer India Ltd.(the Appellant) is the manufacturer of CDR, CD Rom, DVDR and DVD Rom, falling under Chapter Heading 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, at their factory situated at Noida. The Head Office of the Appellant, located at Okhla, Delhi is registered as an Input Service Distributer (ISD) in terms of Rule 2(m) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (the Credit Rules).
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) was rendering Customer care services to the customers of CDMA mobile phone in India on behalf of Samsung Electronics Company Ltd., Korea (Samsung Korea).
The Appellant is a manufacturer of ready mix cement concrete and also provides men and materials to lay concrete mixture on area specified by purchaser. For the Assessment Year 2003-04, the Appellant claimed exemption treating the transaction as a Works contract under Notification G. O. Ms. No. 50/90/F6, dated December 10, 1990.
National Leather Cloth Mfg. Co. (the Petitioner) was engaged in the manufacture of Excisable goods falling under Chapter 39, 56 and 59 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period January 1995 to March 1997, the Petitioner had utilized the Cenvat credit
JBF Industries (the Appellant) was engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Chips, Lump Waste, and Polymer Waste falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and was availing Cenvat Credit on Inputs, Capital goods and Input services in terms of the Cenvat Credit Rules
he Appellant was engaged in the business of manufacture of P.U. foam sheets and availing the benefit of Cenvat credit. The Appellant had procured blocks of P.U. foam covered under Chapter Heading No. 3920 or 3921 and cut them into different sizes &shapes and the final product P.U.
The Central Board of Excise and Customs (the Board) vide Instruction F. No. 207/07/2014-CX-6 dated January 20, 2015 has issued an instruction in respect of issuance of summons in the Central Excise and Service tax matters wherein summons have been issued to the officials of the companies to enforce recovery of dues, which are under dispute.
During the period from September 10, 2004 to December 31, 2004, Madura Coats (P) Ltd. (the Petitioner) received certain services from abroad and paid Service tax thereon under reverse charge on January 25, 2005 on insistence of the Department.
Shri Mahesh Vaktawarmal Rathod (the Appellant) rented out their premises to M/s Loot India Pvt. Ltd. Renting of immovable property was brought under the Service tax net under erstwhile Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Finance Act) w.e.f. June 1, 2007.
