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 Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad, held that as per Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, if consignor or consignee is one of the specified entities, then person liable to pay Service tax would be person liable to pay freight. Since consignor i.e. EOL was a factory as per Factories Act and a company under Companies Act, GTA service provider i.e., the Appellant was not liable to Service tax.
Refund of Service tax on services not provided cannot be denied on ground that same was not shown as ‘receivable’ in Balance Sheet Radico Khaitan Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [(2014) 48 taxmann.com 340 (New Delhi – CESTAT)] Radico Khaitan Ltd. (the Appellant) entered into an agreement with Diageo Radico Distrilleries Pvt. Ltd. […]
The Hon’ble High Court relied on the case of State of Gujarat Vs. M.M. Hazi Hasan [AIR 1967 SC 1885] and ordered the Revenue to hand over the exact quantity of the goods seized to the Petitioner as shown in the seizure list or pay equivalent money for the quantity of the seized goods at the present market rate to the Petitioner.
We are sharing with you the recent judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Bangalore CESTAT in the case of Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs. CC, Bangalore-Cus & Others [2014-TIOL-1836-CESTAT-Bang] wherein 56 Appeals were heard together and the Bangalore Bench of the CESTAT passed an interim order on 16 Common/ Legal Issues pertaining to refund
There is no provision in Service tax law for deeming notional interest on security deposit taken as a consideration for leasing of the immovable property. Therefore, in the absence of a specific provision in law there is no scope for adding any notional interest to the value of taxable service rendered.
Shivam Engineering Company Vs. Union of India [2014-TIOL-1563-HC-AHM-CUS] In the instant case, Shivam Engineering Company (the Petitioners) have filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Ahmadabad High Court requesting to prohibit the Revenue from levying Additional Duty of Excise (CVD) under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (the Customs Tariff) as per the […]
The Finance Act (No.2), 2014 (the Finance Act) has substituted new Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Excise Act) which is also applicable for Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Customs Act) to prescribe mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% or […]
Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara [2014-TIOL-1 729-CESTA T-AHM] Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. (the Appellant) has rendered services of transportation of effluent through pipeline or conduit to Heavy Water Project (HWP) for consideration. The Department contended that the Appellant is liable to pay Service tax on the […]
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Apple India Pvt. Ltd. [2014-TIOL-1544-HC-KAR-CUS] In the instant case, Apple India Pvt. Ltd. (the Respondent) filed a refund claim of Rs.5,22,27,424/- of Special Additional Duty (SAD) in terms of the Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.(N.T.) dated September 14, 2007. The authorities rejected the said claim of refund on the grounds that the Respondent […]
Cadbury India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise-Indore [(2014) 48 taxmann.com 78 (New Delhi – CESTAT)] Cadbury India Limited (“the Appellant”) filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the learned Commissioner held that the cheque discounting charges would be includible in the assessable value of the goods. Being aggrieved, the Appellant […]
