Goods and Services Tax : Kerala HC rules that GST orders under Section 73 must have digital or manual signatures to be valid, quashing impugned orders in t...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore Section 61 of CGST Act, covering scrutiny of GST returns, officer's authority, taxpayer obligations, and implications for ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Kerala SGST guidelines address the adjudication of multiple Show Cause Notices, ensuring consistency in decision-making across...
Goods and Services Tax : Learn about GST amnesty provisions for waiving interest, penalties, and regularizing ITC under Section 16(4) of CGST Act. Apply by...
Goods and Services Tax : Learn about GST return scrutiny under Section 61 of the CGST Act, 2017. Understand the process, objectives, and key areas of compl...
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 : Gauhati High Court held that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 is not a substitute to the Show Cause Notice to be...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court issues notice on a plea challenging GST notifications extending limitation for adjudication under Section 73 of ...
Goods and Services Tax : Calcutta High Court dismissed a plea challenging an SCN under the CGST Act, citing availability of a statutory appeal remedy under...
Goods and Services Tax : Assessee clarified that Form ST-3 was incorrect as some of the invoices inadvertently remained unaccounted for the said period and...
Goods and Services Tax : Gauhati High Court held that issuance of summary of the Show Cause Notice [SCN] doesn’t dispense with requirement of issuance of...
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...
CESTAT Delhi held that service of wireline logging, perforation and other mechanical job is covered under mining service only with effect from 01.06.2007. Accordingly, such services cannot be classified under ‘technical testing and analysis’ and taxed prior to 01.06.2007.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that sub-contractor is liable to pay service tax on ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation service’ even if the main contractor has discharged Service Tax liability on the activity undertaken by the subcontractor.
CESTAT Delhi held that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in absence of suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Here, it was merely suppression of facts but intent to evade payment of service tax was absent.
CESTAT Chennai held that as the demand was raised on the basis of the books of accounts which was not hidden from the department, there was no wilful suppression or mis-statement of facts with intent to evade tax and hence invocation of extended period not justified.
CESTAT Chennai held that invocation of extended period of limitation justified as non-filing of ST-3 returns for such a long period i.e., from March 2006 to March 2010 will make the intent to evade tax obvious.
ITAT Chennai held that provisions of section 73 doesnot apply in view of specific exclusions of the arbitrage/jobbing transactions from the purview of speculative transaction u/s 43(5) of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as ‘information technology software service’ was implemented w.e.f. 16.05.2008 the same cannot be held taxable prior to that date. Hence, demand for the period prior to 16.05.2008 is not maintainable.
CESTAT Delhi held that unless payment has been made for an independent activity of tolerating an act under an independent arrangement entered into for such activity or tolerating an act, such payment will not constitute ‘consideration’ and such activities will not constitute ‘supply’.
Delhi High Court held that rejection of declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) on ground that investigation has not been concluded is unsustainable as SVLDRS doesn’t exclude taxpayers in respect of whom investigation is not concluded.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the deposit insurance activity of Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation, Mumbai (DICGC) falls within the ambit of section 65(105)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 and is chargeable to Service Tax under “General Insurance Business”.
