Goods and Services Tax : The Karnataka High Court held that interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act is a statutory liability that cannot be waived or red...
Goods and Services Tax : The Gauhati High Court held that a GST cancellation order without recorded reasons is a non-speaking order and violates natural ju...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court held that GST proceedings under Sections 73, 74 or 74A can be initiated against legal heirs after the propri...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court held that retrospective cancellation of a supplier's GST registration alone is insufficient to deny ITC. Aut...
Goods and Services Tax : The Gauhati High Court held that a bona fide purchaser cannot be denied Input Tax Credit merely because the supplier failed to dep...
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 Madras High Court quashed a GST assessment order issued nearly four years after the assessee's death. It held that proceedings...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court held that a Section 62 best judgment assessment cannot continue once the taxpayer subsequently files GST ret...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court quashed a Section 74 demand after finding the taxpayer's turnover appeared below the GST registration thresh...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court held that Section 74 cannot be invoked without allowing the assessee to produce evidence establishing genuin...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court quashed a GST assessment on seigniorage fees after finding that the taxpayer's reply was ignored. It remande...
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 ...
Yesterday, the TRU has issued number of Notifications to give effect of implementation of Paradigm shift in taxation of Services –Budget 2012 by way of either rescinding or amending old Notifications including some of recently issued Notifications during the time of Budget 2012 i.e. 17th March, 2012, which were supposed to come into force from the date on which the new Section 66B (the new charging Section) i.e. 1st July 2012.
Recently Service Tax (Determination of Valuation Rules), 2012 vide Notification No. 11/2012 –S.T dated 17.03.2012 amended the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 which were supposed to come into force from the date on which the new Section 66B (the new charging Section) comes into effect i.e. 1st July 2012 but the said Rules got superseded before coming into force vide Notification no. 24/2012-ST dated 06.06.2012 (the Notification no. 24/2012-ST).
The Union Budget 2012 has proposed multiple changes in Service Tax. One of the important aspects of burden of tax liability under Reverse Charge concept has also been proposed to be replaced from existing provisions. Applicability of New Reverse Charge Mechanism -According to Notification No 15/2012-ST dated 17.03.2012, which supersedes notification no. 36/2004-ST dated 31.12.2004, the proposed Reverse Charge Mechanism will be made applicable from the date on which Section 66B of the Finance Act,1994 comes into force i.e. 1-7-2012.
The Central Government vide Notification No. 19/2012-ST dated 05.06.2012 has announced Date of Introduction of new regime of most awaited Negative List approach in Service Tax, which will apply w.e.f. 01.07.2012 i.e. service tax would be applicable on all services except those mentioned either in the Negative List or in the Mega Exemption vide Notification No. 12/2012-ST dated 17.03.2012.
The Central Government by exercising the power conferred by clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 94 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) has made the Service Tax (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2012 (herein after referred as the Compounding of offences Rules, 2012) published by Notification No.17/2012-ST, dated 29.05.2012.
Please note that Hon’ble President has given her assent to the Finance Bill, 2012 and got enacted as Finance Act(No 23 of 2012) on May 28,2012. We have summarized various statutory provisions have been made applicable w.e.f. 28-05-2012.
CENTRAL Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) has issued clarification vides Circular No. 158/9/ 2012–ST dated. 8th May, 2012 on the rate of service tax applicable wherein invoices were raised before 1st April 2012 and the payments shall be after 1st April 2012 in case of the 8 specified services provided by individuals or proprietary firms or partnership firms, to which Rule 7 of Point of Taxation Rules 2011 was applicable and services on which tax is paid under reverse charge under section 68(2) of the Finance Act.
The current Section 44AB of the IT Act has been challenged by the Appellant on behalf of the Income Tax Practitioners. The Appellant contends that the Income Tax Practitioners should be entitled to be authorized representatives and that they are excluded for auditing accounts which violates their Fundamental Rights, specifically Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
