CIT Vs Endeka Ceramics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Karnataka High Court) Admittedly in the instant case, the industrial undertaking of the appellant-assessee is not located in the Industrial Backward District, which has been mentioned in the Notification issued by the Central Government. It is pertinent to note here that the first Notification was issued by the […]
Where the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act had already commenced and during the pendency, the company gets dissolved, the directors and the other accused cannot escape by citing its dissolution. What is dissolved is only the company, not the personal penal liability of the accused covered under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Since Central Excise Department had not sanctioned any refund / rebate of the duty paid on the supplies to the EOUs by assessee-company and the refund of TED was sanctioned by the DGFT thus, if DGFT had acted under the different provisions and the refund was sanctioned under those provisions, the proper authority was DGFT who could initiate proceedings against the assessee-company for violation of exemption notification and the Advance Authorization Licence not the Central Excise Department.
Arya Traders Vs. State of Gujarat (Gujarat high court) The present writ petition is filed mainly for seeking release against the goods and vehicle without demanding any security. High Court states that, the goods and the conveyance came to be detained and seized way back on 9th July, 2019. Till this date, the goods and […]
AK Overseas Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Allahabad High Court) The Petitioner has filed the writ petition to release the seized goods which are seized under Rule 140 of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017. High Court states that, in case the petitioner fulfills the requirement of Rule 140 together with its explanation, […]
High Court states that if the petitioner fulfills the requirement of Rule 140 together with its explanation, Authorised GST officer will release his vehicle along with the goods within period of one week.
In re M/s Rajeev Bansal and Sudershan Mittal (GST AAR Uttarakhand) Whether business transfer agreement as a going concern which consists of transferring under construction building project is covered under S. No. 12 of the Notification No. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) and its thus exempt from the applicability of GST? From the record we find […]
In the instant case the questions, on which the applicant seeks advance ruling, are not in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the said applicant, but in relation to the service/ s being received by them. Therefore the instant application is beyond the jurisdiction of this authority and hence is liable for rejection.
Mails and other electronic evidence cannot be relied upon to prove undervaluation in absence of compliance of provisions of Section 138C of the Act ibid as held by Anvar P. V and S.N.Agrotech. It is trite law that statements can be relied upon only if they are voluntary and true.
The onetime payment of the annual rent as per the lease deed is rightly claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer was not right in holding that the payment during the year relates to land which is capital in nature.
