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 Petitioner claimed that impugned sale was effected by transfer of documents of title before the goods had crossed the Customs frontiers of India and hence declared impugned saleas a sale in the course of import/ high sea sales and claimed exemption under Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the CST Act) on the turnover of Rs.1,14,86,342/- and Rs.4,05,09,427/- respectively.
Dev International (the Appellant) imported certain goods (impugned goods) and filed two Bills of Entry, both dated July 17,2008 wherein 4% SAD, amounting to Rs.1,11,556.90 was paid. The impugned goods were detained by Central Intelligence Unit (CIU) for investigation.
Jai Mahal Hotels (P.) Ltd. (the Appellant) entered into a joint venture agreement dated August 28, 1985 with Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL) for running hotel business at immovable property owned by the Appellant.
DGFT denied the benefit of SFIS, as framed under the FTPto the Petitioners and separate communications were sent to the Petitioners withdrawing/recalling the said benefits on the ground that they were subsidiaries of foreign companies
In the instant case, B. Saravanan (Contractor) [the Petitioner] was a registered dealer under provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (the Tamil Nadu VAT Act). The Department passed an Order cancelling the Petitioner’s Registration Certificate with retrospective effect (the Impugned Order).
Premier Cable Company Ltd. (the Company) registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (the Companies Act) was wound up by an order passed by the Hon’ble High Court and an Official Liquidator (the OL) attached to the High Court was appointed to take charge of the assets and liabilities of the Company and to deal with the same in terms of the Companies Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
Hon’ble CESTAT, Chennai held that in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act, the conversion is possible on the documents in existence at the time of export. The shipping bills in the instant case were supported by a certificate from the Chartered Engineer, which was endorsed with the export particulars.
In the instant case, in the earlier round of proceedings, the Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai remanded the matter by an order dated August 11, 2009 and in remand proceedings, the First Appellate Authority enhanced the penalty imposed on John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) without issuing any Show Cause Notice.
eturned goods have to be treated as Inputs and the Assessee having shown the issuance of the said Inputs from their RG-1 are deemed to have manufactured final product – Reversal of Cenvat credit cannot be sought
C K P Mandal (the Appellant) is a Charitable Trust. It has two halls which are given on hire for various functions. On hire charges, the Appellant was paying Service tax under the category of Mandap keeper. The Appellant also received donations from caterers and decorators for permitting them to use the halls.
