Goods and Services Tax : Section 74A replaces the earlier Sections 73 and 74, creating a unified framework for tax recovery in cases of short payment, erro...
Goods and Services Tax : This case explains situations where ITC is availed and utilised without receipt of goods or services. The ruling clarifies that su...
Goods and Services Tax : Highlights how authorities routinely invoke Section 74 without evidence of fraud and explains courts’ stance that such notices a...
Goods and Services Tax : Understand the process of GST intimation in Form DRC-01A, issued for tax discrepancies. Learn about the parts of DRC-01A, applicab...
Goods and Services Tax : Calcutta High Court stays a GST order, citing no force majeure for time limit extension under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act for FY...
Goods and Services Tax : KSCAA represents to the Finance Minister on the misapplication of GST Section 74 notices for small demands, urging restriction to ...
Goods and Services Tax : KSCAA highlights practical GST challenges in Sec 128A & Sec 16(4), urging clarifications on appeals, ITC, interest waivers, and mu...
Goods and Services Tax : The case examined whether a tax order for FY 2019–20 was time-barred. The Court held that notification-based extensions validly ...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court held that use of visual identifiers on packaging like fonts, symbols, colours, etc. establishes brandname for GS...
Goods and Services Tax : Dispute on ITC mismatch between returns was remitted after ex-parte order, allowing reconciliation upon 10% pre-deposit. Key takea...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai quashes ₹1.64 Cr reassessment for faceless violation & time-barred notice u/s 148; holds jurisdictional defect fatal...
Service Tax : Extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the absence of fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evad...
Goods and Services Tax : New GST circular clarifies payment via GSTR-3B for Section 128A benefits, and appeal withdrawals for mixed period demands....
Goods and Services Tax : Learn about the Kerala SGST Act's interest and penalty waiver under Section 128A, eligibility, application process, and compliance...
Goods and Services Tax : Kerala SGST issues guidelines on issuing separate notices for Sections 73 and 74. Ensures clarity and uniformity in handling GST d...
The case examined whether a tax order for FY 2019–20 was time-barred. The Court held that notification-based extensions validly extended the limitation period, making the order legally valid.
Madras High Court held that use of visual identifiers on packaging like fonts, symbols, colours, etc. establishes brandname for GST purpose. However, since there was no suppression of fact invocation of extended period denied.
Dispute on ITC mismatch between returns was remitted after ex-parte order, allowing reconciliation upon 10% pre-deposit. Key takeaway: reconciliation issues must be examined with proper hearing.
ITAT Mumbai quashes ₹1.64 Cr reassessment for faceless violation & time-barred notice u/s 148; holds jurisdictional defect fatal, TOLA cannot extend limitation.
Extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the absence of fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax and accordingly, set aside the entire demand as time barred.
CESTAT Allahabad held that electrical repair services provided to governmental entities is exempt from payment of service tax vide notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Accordingly, the order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
Supreme Court held that negligence on part of bank in presentation of cheque within the validity period of cheque leads to ‘deficiency in service’ under the Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, compensation entitled to be awarded to the consumer.
The case clarifies that Section 74 requires clear evidence of fraud or wilful suppression. Mere reliance on third-party alerts without independent inquiry is insufficient. The ruling protects taxpayers from mechanical and assumption-based proceedings.
The Court held that denial of input tax credit cannot be sustained without clear findings that suppliers failed to pay tax. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after proper examination.
Karnataka High Court held that pigmy agents employed by the Bank can never be treated as business facilitators and qualifies as employees of the Bank and hence commission paid to pigmy agents is clearly exempt from levy of GST in terms of Sl.No.1 of Schedule III. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
