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 ...
Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs. Anita Synthetics Private Limited [2014 (9) TMI 368 – Gujarat High Court] Anita Synthetics Private Limited (The Respondent) is a 100% EOU and made clearance of goods to another 100% EOU. Such clearance is treated as a deemed export as mentioned in the EXIM Policy. Therefore, the Respondent […]
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Chandresh C. Shah [(2014) 48 taxmann. com 236 (Gujarat)] In the instant case, the Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) against Doshion Ltd. (the Company) for recovery of wrongly availed Cenvat credit along with interest and penalty thereon. Further, personal penalty was also imposed against authorized signatory/ managers of […]
Unjust Enrichment not applicable on refund of Service tax paid when no services are received under reverse charge and payment thereof had been adjusted between associated enterprises Wolters Kluwer India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [(2014) 48 taxmann.com 97 (New Delhi – CESTAT)] Wolters Kluwer India Ltd. (the Appellant) entered into an agreement […]
Moser Bear India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Noida [TS368-Tribunal-2014(DEL)] The head office of Moser Bear India Ltd. (the Appellant), located at Delhi is registered as an input service distributer (ISD) in terms of Rule 2(m) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (the Credit Rules). The head office was discharging Service tax liability under Reverse Charge for […]
It is relevant to note that penalty under Section 86(15) of the DVAT Act, 2004 (“the DVAT Act”) is leviable for preparation of false, misleading and deceptive books and accounts. A clarification has been issued vide Circular 12/2014-15 dated September 11, 2014 that if tax deficiency arose due to false, maintenance of books and accounts […]
Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Vs. Sterlite Industries India Ltd. & Others [2014-TIOL-1411-HC-MAD-CUS] In the instant case, the issue was whether demurrage charges and despatch money is required to be included in the assessable value of goods. The Hon’ble Tribunal relied upon a Larger Bench decision in Indian Oil Corporation Vs. CC, Calcutta [2000 (122) ELT […]
The Delhi Value Added Tax Department has issued Circular No. 11 of 2014-15 dated September 8, 2014 (the Circular) to clarify reversal of Input Tax Credit in respect of Credit Note (CN) or Debit Note (DN) issued in relation to discounts. In terms of Section 10(1) of the DVAT Act, 2004 (the DVAT Act) where […]
The Hon’ble CESTAT relied on the case of CCE Ahmedabad Vs. AIA Engineering Ltd. [2009 (248) ELT 826 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat inCCE Vs. AIA Engineering Ltd. [2011 (21) STR 367 (Guj.)] wherein it was held that the refund filed with the Department, though with the wrong authority has to be treated as having been filed on the first date.
Amalgamated Company would be eligible to avail the Cenvat Credit lying in the books of Amalgamating Company when all the facts were intimated to the Department, even though it isn’t in the prescribed form IPF Vikram India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana [(2014) 47 taxmann.com 362 (New Delhi – CESTAT)]
The high court held that there was no evidence on record to show that the entire import was made at the instance of the group companies. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be barred from transferring the rights in property unless the revenue provides sufficient evidence that the entire import was at the instance of the group companies and the petitioner was involved in it.
