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...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that negligence on part of bank in presentation of cheque within the validity period of cheque leads to ‘defi...
Goods and Services Tax : The case clarifies that Section 74 requires clear evidence of fraud or wilful suppression. Mere reliance on third-party alerts wit...
Goods and Services Tax : The Court held that denial of input tax credit cannot be sustained without clear findings that suppliers failed to pay tax. The ma...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka High Court held that pigmy agents employed by the Bank can never be treated as business facilitators and qualifies as em...
Income Tax : The Court held that a summary in Form DRC-01 cannot substitute a proper show cause notice under Section 73. Proceedings initiated ...
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...
CESTAT Mumbai held that rule 6(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides for availment of entire amount of credit of input services even though certain portion must have been used in manufacture of exempted goods.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the catering service provided to the students in the educational institution qualify for service tax exemption as per the notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.
CESTAT Chennai held that invocation of extended period of limitation unjustified as issue was mired in litigation and interpretation of law. Further, appellant is public sector undertaking and hence there is no scope of suppression with an intention to evade tax.
CESTAT Allahabad held that invocation of extended period of limitation under proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act unjustified in absence of any willful suppression of facts with an intent to evade the payment of tax.
Delhi High Court held that New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) being a body corporate, the petitioner (service provider) was liable to pay service tax on works contract to the extent of 50%. Accordingly, the demand was set aside as 50% service tax was duly discharged.
CESTAT Allahabad held that service tax is leviable on services relating to health & fitness by way of teaching yoga and meditation under the category of ‘Health and Fitness Services’.
ITAT Hyderabad held that interest payment on late payment of TDS is not compensatory in nature and is not allowable as deduction u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere non-disclosure of the receipts in the service tax return would not mean that there was an intent to evade payment of service tax. Hence, demand invoking extended period of limitation unsustainable.
In Scaria Thomas & Co vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) case, learn about the absence of penalty under Section 78 in service tax due to no misrepresentation.
ITAT Kolkata held that when original return filed was defective and such defect is removed u/s. 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, the return filed u/s. 139(1) becomes a valid return from the date when it was originally filed. Accordingly, set off business income with carry forwarded business loss allowed.
