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 Ahmedabad held that as ‘information technology software service’ was implemented w.e.f. 16.05.2008 the same cannot be held taxable prior to that date. Hence, demand for the period prior to 16.05.2008 is not maintainable.
CESTAT Delhi held that unless payment has been made for an independent activity of tolerating an act under an independent arrangement entered into for such activity or tolerating an act, such payment will not constitute ‘consideration’ and such activities will not constitute ‘supply’.
Delhi High Court held that rejection of declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) on ground that investigation has not been concluded is unsustainable as SVLDRS doesn’t exclude taxpayers in respect of whom investigation is not concluded.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the deposit insurance activity of Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation, Mumbai (DICGC) falls within the ambit of section 65(105)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 and is chargeable to Service Tax under “General Insurance Business”.
Madras High Court held that the object of Section 80 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST) is only to benefit an assessee who has been complaint in effecting payment of the admitted tax. Benefit of section 80 not available in case of amount due as per the liability self-assessed in any return.
CESTAT Delhi held that denial of CENVAT credit of ‘event management services’ merely because invoice didn’t mention what event was being organized is unjustified.
CESTAT Chennai held that relevant date of filing refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules in case of export of service is the date of realization of the foreign exchange.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that activity of only transportation of goods will not be considered as cargo handling service.
CESTAT Delhi held that when a government company is involved there will be a rebuttable presumption regarding nonexistence of any of the ingredients mentioned in the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act. Accordingly, extended period of limitation couldn’t be invoked.
Delhi High Court held that revenue should adjudicate show cause notice expeditiously and within a reasonable time. Accordingly, continuation of proceedings for adjudication after a lapse of almost 13 years impermissible.
