The Mumbai CESTAT remanded a service tax dispute after finding that the appellant failed to include grounds of appeal in the prescribed ST-4 form. The Tribunal held that proper pleadings are essential for meaningful appellate adjudication.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that a CFS operator remained liable to pay cost recovery charges even without formal sanction of customs posts. The Court applied the doctrine of “substance over form” after finding that customs supervision and services were continuously provided.
The Tamil Nadu AAR held that “Pooja Panneer” could not claim GST exemption as puja samagri because the exemption notification specifically listed eligible items. The Authority ruled that the word “namely” made the list exhaustive and not illustrative.
The Tamil Nadu AAR observed that devotees’ tonsuring is a religious activity exempt from GST, but the subsequent licensing of hair collection is a separate commercial transaction liable to GST.
The Tamil Nadu AAR ruled that the GST advance ruling application stood withdrawn after the applicant informed the authority about its decision to withdraw the filing due to business transformation plans.
The Tamil Nadu AAR held that commission paid to a foreign national director for sourcing export orders attracts GST under reverse charge as it qualifies as import of services. The ruling relied on place of supply provisions under the IGST Act.
ITAT Chennai held that the assessee was denied reasonable opportunity when the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without permitting correction of technical defects in the condonation petition. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that only 8% of disputed purchases could be added where the assessee had disclosed corresponding sales and made payments through banking channels. Entire purchase disallowance was held to distort true business income.
The Gauhati High Court directed authorities to consider restoration of GST registration after the petitioner filed pending returns and cleared tax dues. The Court relied on earlier similar rulings involving cancellation for non-filing of returns.
The Tribunal ruled that capital gains on Transferable Development Rights must be computed after deducting the purchase cost of TDR from the sale consideration. The case was remanded because the assessee failed to submit documents before the AO earlier.
