In re Siemens Limited (GST AAAR West Bengal) Whether mobilization advance for works contract is supply on the date on which it stands credited on the supplier’s account The appellant argued that the lump sum amount was received by them on 24.06.2011 and they have determined the applicability of taxes on the same as per […]
appellant have reversed the CENVAT credit in their CENVAT credit account but the same was not shown in the ST-3 Returns because by the time refund was filed, GST has been introduced and filing of ST-3 returns itself was done away with. Further, I find that the appellant has voluntarily debited the refund amount in GSTR-3B during May 2018 which clearly complies with the conditions of the Notification.
Eckhard Garbers Vs Shri Shubham Agrawal (Sessions Court, Mumbai) Section 276-B Criminal Prosecution for TDS default: Chief Finance Officer, who was responsible for the day to day finance matters including recovery of TDS from the customers and to deposit in the account of the Central Government, was prima facie responsible for the criminal prosecution for […]
Intec Corporation Vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Plain reading of Section 150 reveals that it deals with a situation where an assessment or re-assessment for a particular year or for a particular person is necessitated by an order passed by appellate or revisional authority or on a reference. In such cases, it may not be […]
It is further contended that petitioner is involved in using data of individuals for creating fake firms to claim Input Tax Credit. It is contended that statement of accountant and brother of petitioner has been recorded, they have also stated that present petitioner was involved in creating fake firm under GST. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the Union of India, I am not inclined to allow the bail application.
While passing the assessment order AO had followed the permissible view in law which could not be said to be ‘unsustainable in law’. Therefore, the jurisdictional facts for usurping the jurisdiction u/s 263, being absent, the action of CIT to exercise revisional jurisdiction was without jurisdiction and all subsequent actions were ‘null’ in the eyes of law.
Aviat Health Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Mumbai) It is worthwhile to mention here that ‘trading’ is a pure sale which is subjected to the taxable jurisdiction of the provisional Government and no Service Tax liability accrues from pure sale un-associated with any service component as has been elaborately dealt by the […]
Shri. Abhishek Vs Signature Builders Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) Central Government, on the recommendation of the GST Council, had levied 18% GST with effective rate of 12% in view of 1/3rd abatement on value on the – construction service, vide Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 which was reduced in the case of […]
Shri. Pradeep Kumar Vs Fusion Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) The Respondent’s further contention that he had already offered more than 10% discount in basic prices to all the customers who have booked flats Post GST and the discount had been given mainly on account of availability of ITC, thus the allegation that he […]
A.F. Babu Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court) While it is a fact that the petitioners did not make an attempt to log into the system before 27.12.2017, the cut-off date prescribed by the respondents for uploading the TRAN-1 Form to the web portal, I find that the petitioners were guided by a press […]
