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 Madras High Court held that clubbing five assessment years in a single GST show cause notice is contrary to Section 73 of the ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court held that an order under Section 74 cannot be passed when the notice was issued under Section 73. The matter...
Service Tax : CESTAT Kolkata held that the respondent had paid the Service Tax before availing CENVAT credit on the disputed invoices. Finding n...
Corporate Law : The Madras High Court held that courts are empowered under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare disputed and admitted signatu...
Service Tax : The Gauhati High Court held that the extended limitation under Section 73 cannot be invoked without specific findings of fraud, su...
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...
Delhi High Court quashes a Rs. 7 crore GST demand, emphasizing the need for the proper officer to consider replies on merits. Details of the judgment.
CESTAT Allahabad rules on LG Electronics India vs Commissioner of Central Excise, emphasizing procedural violations are not suppression for extended limitation.
HC observed that if GST authorities found reply lacking, they should have requested additional information instead of outright dismissing reply. HC set aside impugned order and remitted case back to Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
Delhi HC quashes GST demand of Rs 1 crore against RPJ Polymers, citing non-application of mind by Proper Officer. Case remitted for re-adjudication.
Madras High Court grants Hajabandenawas a chance to resubmit documents for GSTR-1 vs GSTR-3B discrepancies without pre-deposit condition. Learn more about the case.
Understand the process of issuance of Show Cause Notices, orders, and payment of penalties under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act 2017. Learn about timelines, penalties, and procedural intricacies in this comprehensive guide.
Delhi High Court restores matter to proper officer for adjudication of SCN on no excess claim of ITC. Learn about the case and its implications.
Explore the benefits of private trusts as an alternative tool for succession planning, ensuring fair and transparent asset transfer while addressing taxation and legal considerations.
Delhi HC overturned a GST demand order due to officer’s failure to consider taxpayer’s detailed reply and remitted case for re-adjudication, granting petitioner an opportunity to provide further clarification.
Section 107(11) provides wide-ranging powers to the appellate authority to modify orders passed under Section 130(2) by the adjudicating authority. It emphasized that as long as the appellate authority’s decision is based on relevant considerations and is not manifestly unjust or unreasonable, the court has limited scope to interfere with its discretion.
