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 refund claim under section 11B filed beyond the period of one year from the relevant date is not maintainable. Here, relevant date was date on which appellant has voluntarily paid the short payment of service tax.
CESTAT Delhi held that imposition of service tax on composite works contract prior to 1st July 2007 i.e. prior to introduction of works contract service is unjustified and untenable in law.
CESTAT Delhi held that the service tax is not applicable to the services provided in the State of J&K irrespective of the service provider being from the said State or otherwise. Accordingly, service tax is not leviable on Consulting Engineering Services rendered to the clients for construction of road in the State of J&K.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that initiation of demand of tax u/s 74 may be either section 61 (scrutiny of returns) or section 65 (audit by tax authorities) or some other fact. Mere scrutiny of return not mandatory for initiation of demand of tax u/s 74.
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.
