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...
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that non-conveying of grounds of arrest in writing is not sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 19 of the PMLA and Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, arrest of the present petitioner illegal and cannot be sustained.
Where the law prescribed a manner in which a power had to be exercised, then such power could be exercised only in such a manner. No prior notice was served during personal hearings therefore, alleged personal hearings were in contravention of the Circular as circulars or instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) were legally binding on the department.
Discover the details of the GST Amnesty Scheme, which extends the appeal period for taxpayers who missed the deadline to file appeals. Learn about the conditions and implications
Kerala High Court’s judgment in Geetha Agencies vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, setting aside the assessment order and recovery notice for denied input tax credit.
Kerala High Court held that penalty leviable when the person chargeable to tax fails to deposit the tax collected by him within a period of 30 days from the due date of payment of such tax.
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.
