This Petition is pending for more than a year on a simple issue as to who is the Proper Authority to decide the Petitioner’s case / claim. According to the reply affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs – Respondent no.5, it is the Respondent no.4 who is the authority.
No Sec. 68 additions solely based on MOU found during search In Premises Of Third Party if assessee wasn’t even remotely connected to MOU
Galaxy Bar and Restaurant Vs State of Odisha and others (Orissa High Court) Aggrieved by the non-grant of a licence for an IMFL Restaurant ON Shop under the name and style as ‘Galaxy Bar and Restaurant at Nayagarh’, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties to process […]
Whether appellants liable to pay service tax on consideration received for construction services which are composite in nature including both supply of materials and provision of services for the period prior to 01.06.2007.
CESTAT held that when Tribunal given a specific direction to extend cum-duty benefit to appellant, Adjudicating Authority ought to have calculated demand after granting benefit.
CESTAT held that refund claim of SAD is not time barred as no such limitation is prescribed under original Notification No.102 of 2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007
Integral Coach Factory Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of railway coaches and are registered with the Central Excise Department. On specific intelligence that they were clearing railway coaches without payment of duty, the officers of the Preventive Unit […]
Madras High Court set aside the impugned order as it was based on one basis that writ petitioner’s case is not covered under instruction no. 1914 dated 02.12.1993.
Supreme Court held that rule 3A(2) of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 (TST Rules) are not ultra vires to Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 (TST Act). Accordingly, 4% tax deductible on transfer of right to use goods.
Patna High Court held that in case the petitioner makes deposit of a sum equal to 20% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute then the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay u/s. 112(9) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act) for he cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal.
