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...
Overview of the Jharkhand High Court’s ruling on Atibir Industries’ earnest money forfeiture by Central Coalfields. Dive into the key arguments, analysis, and outcomes.
Delhi High Court held that in terms of section 28(9) of the Customs Act the show cause notice needs to be adjudicated within a period of six months or within one year. Adjudication of notice after expiry of the said period is time-barred.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that it is settled legal position that sub-contractor is liable to pay service tax even though main contractor has paid service tax on total value. Accordingly, service tax demand sustained.
Examining the CESTAT Chandigarh order on Chanakya Communication’s appeal. The judgment pertains to Cenvat Credit claim rights linked to service tax payment.
In present facts of the case, the Appeals were dismissed by Honble Supreme Court and have affirmed the Order of the Arbitral Tribunal wherein de-canalisation order by the Government was not communicated within time.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that single invisible contract involving supply of raw material and construction activity is classified under works contract hence taxable only from 01.06.2007. However, in case of divisible works contract clearly defining value of service portion and raw material is classifiable under ‘Commercial and Industrial Construction’ prior to 01.06.2007.
CESTAT Delhi held that player fees paid to Ishant Sharma by M/s. Knight Riders Sports Private Limited under the contract is for the activity of playing cricket and not for any promotional activity. Hence, service tax not leviable on the same under ‘Business Support Service’.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that imposition of penalty unjustified as tax paid along with interest before issuance of show cause notice.
CESTAT Chennai held that Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company paying Commission to unapproved dealers in the guise of receipt of ‘data processing and policy servicing and related activities’ service. Accordingly, since such service is not received by the company they are ineligible to avail CENVAT Credit of the same.
CESTAT Kolkata held that data collection and analysis, manpower mobilization, liaison, training supervision cannot be classified under ‘Management Consultancy Service’ and hence demand of service tax set aside.
