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...
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.
Patna High Court held that the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, for he cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal.
Delhi High Court held that right to use radio frequency spectrum or its subsequent transfer covered under Clause (j) of Section 66E which was effective from 14.05.2016. Accordingly, compensation received during Financial Year 2015-2016 not leviable to service tax.
Jharkhand High Court held that show cause notice u/s 73(1) on mismatch in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A issued on standard format without strucking off unnecessary particulars or without specifying contraventions is termed as vague.
Delhi High Court held that as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to meet the case that it was not entitled to refund as the services provided by it was as an intermediary. Matter is remanded back to Appellate Authority as the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
CESTAT Delhi held that Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the power to issue the notice under section 73(1) of the Finance Act. Accordingly, order passed thereon deserved to be set aside.
