Assessee-company was engaged in the manufacture of transformers and their parts falling under Chapter Heading 8504 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. It was registered with the Central Excise department and was availing CENVAT credit on various inputs including transformer oil.
Since raising of finance for day-to-day operations by assessee was squarely covered within the scope of the definition of ‘support service’ and thus assessee was liable to discharge service tax on the Guarantee commission paid to Government of Karnataka or raising funds from the debt market.
ITAT Mumbai held that Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of guarantee commission was determined at the rate of 0.3523% instead of 1.25%.
CESTAT Chennai held that duty exemption available to all items of machinery, including instruments, apparatus and appliances, auxiliary equipment and their component parts required for setting up of water treatment plants. Accordingly, duty paid under protest is required to be refunded back.
ITAT Mumbai held that unsold flats which are in stock in trade should be assessed under the head “business income” and there is no justification in estimating the rental value from those flats and notionally computing annual letting value under section 263 of the Act.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that service of laying of pipeline for Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board (GWSSB) is not falling under the service of industrial or commercial construction service.
HSN codes & GST rates for Urban Roots, Bio Kavach, and Immunity Booster Avinja 7. Read detailed AAR Telangana ruling on classification and tax rates.
Kerala High Court modifies VAT Tribunal’s decision in Gaiagen Technologies case. Ruling clarifies service and works contract, directs fresh assessment. Read more.
Bombay High Court’s decision in Bhumika Highstreet Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner case. An in-depth analysis of GST refund rejection order, violations of natural justice, and court’s directive for a fresh show cause notice.
ITAT Pune held that initiation of revisionary proceedings under section 263, based only on the proposal sent by AO for making revision, lacked jurisdiction and hence revisionary proceedings liable to be set aside.
