AAAR held that supply of coaching service by the appellant along with supply of goods/printed material/test papers, uniform, bags and other goods to their students is composite supply and their principal supply is coaching services.
Bombay High Court held that it was appropriate for the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for refund of money as amount deposited under protest was retained by the department without authority of law.
In a recent case, Lupin Limited challenged a recovery order related to excess cash refund under the Budgetary Support Scheme. Sikkim High Court directs reconsideration, highlighting crucial aspects.
CESTAT Delhi held that once the goods are cleared for home consumption after examination and assessment, unless there is an evidence to support, demand u/s. 28 invoking extended period of limitation cannot be raised unless there is evidence of collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts are proven.
Income tax authorities could not step into the shoes of businessmen to determine how much expenditure should have been incurred for the purpose of business. as an organization incurred both operating expenses as well as non-operating expenses for running the business and there were certain expenses which were not allocable to a particular activity.
SRSS Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India: Gujarat High Court to examine validity of Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax extending period for proceedings initiated by Revenue Department
CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of customs broker license unjustified as there is no evidence that shows that the customs broker was aware about the mis-declaration of weight of pan masala as declared in the shipping bill.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the provisions of Section 26E of the Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 shall override the rights of others to recover the outstanding liability of taxes dues etc on the mortgaged/charged property from the original owner etc.
Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that furnishing of shipping document or best evidence is must in respect of supplies made to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep for the purpose of availing concessional rate of tax @4% under proviso to section 6(1) of the KVAT Act.
Supreme Court held that it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence.
