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...
Madras High Court held that the object of Section 80 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST) is only to benefit an assessee who has been complaint in effecting payment of the admitted tax. Benefit of section 80 not available in case of amount due as per the liability self-assessed in any return.
CESTAT Delhi held that denial of CENVAT credit of ‘event management services’ merely because invoice didn’t mention what event was being organized is unjustified.
CESTAT Chennai held that relevant date of filing refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules in case of export of service is the date of realization of the foreign exchange.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that activity of only transportation of goods will not be considered as cargo handling service.
CESTAT Delhi held that when a government company is involved there will be a rebuttable presumption regarding nonexistence of any of the ingredients mentioned in the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act. Accordingly, extended period of limitation couldn’t be invoked.
Delhi High Court held that revenue should adjudicate show cause notice expeditiously and within a reasonable time. Accordingly, continuation of proceedings for adjudication after a lapse of almost 13 years impermissible.
Patna High Court held that the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, for he cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal.
Delhi High Court held that right to use radio frequency spectrum or its subsequent transfer covered under Clause (j) of Section 66E which was effective from 14.05.2016. Accordingly, compensation received during Financial Year 2015-2016 not leviable to service tax.
Jharkhand High Court held that show cause notice u/s 73(1) on mismatch in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A issued on standard format without strucking off unnecessary particulars or without specifying contraventions is termed as vague.
Delhi High Court held that as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to meet the case that it was not entitled to refund as the services provided by it was as an intermediary. Matter is remanded back to Appellate Authority as the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
