Observing that the definition of DTA under SEZ Act includes everything located outside SEZs, CESTAT Hyderabad has held that 100% EOU located outside SEZ, constitutes DTA as far as SEZ Act is concerned. It also observed that Section 51 of the SEZ Act makes it clear that this Act prevails over any other law. The Tribunal held that the appellant (EOU) is entitled to refund of Cenvat Credit under Cenvat Rule 5 in respect of the goods which they had sold to SEZ units. CESTAT Chennai Order in case of Orbis India (P) Ltd. was relied on.
M/s. Novotron Broadband (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & ST (CESTAT Chennai) The issue is with regard to demand of differential service tax on the value obtained is including value of the materials used in rendering Repairs and Maintenance Service. In M/s. Safety Retreading Co. (P) Ltd., (supra) the said issue has been decided, […]
The petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal of registration of their appeals filed under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act since they have not deposited the ten per cent of the disputed amount now mandated under the amended provision of Section 26 of the Act. They have challenged the validity of the amended provisions and the legislative competence of the State.
Assistant Commissioner of Custom Vs Navaskhan (Madras High Court) The present criminal revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy in C.C.No. 167 of 2018 dated 18.07.2018 sentencing the respondent to convict him imprisonment till the rising of Court and imposed a fine of Rs.15000, in default of payment, […]
It has been held that GST is a new progressive levy. One of the progressive ideal of GST is to avoid cascading taxes. GST Laws contemplate seamless flow of tax credits on all eligible inputs.
Young Indian Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Delhi) ITAT Delhi has dismissed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s plea to make Young Indian a charitable trust. Rejecting the application, the ITAT Delhi said that it is a commercial organization. With the rejection of the application, the income tax case of 100 crore rupees against him will open again. […]
In re IL & FS Education and Technology Services Ltd. (GST AAAR Maharashtra) The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling set aside the ruling given by the Advance Ruling Authority by holding that the supply of goods and services by the Appellant to the Director of Education (S & HS) qualifies for exemption in term of […]
The resolution plan submitted by ArcelorMittal on 02.04.2018 proposed an upfront payment of INR 35,000 crores towards resolution of the debt of INR 49,213 crores of financial creditors. This was buttressed by a letter of commitment from Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank. From this upfront cash recovery, unsecured financial creditors were to be paid only an aggregate amount of 5% of their admitted claims.
We are of the considered opinion that all the goods being manufactured by the applicant which are mentioned (including the goods mentioned at Sr. No. 20 and 21) in the drug license issued to the applicant by the competent authority and have the labels as per the standards prescribed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 can be classified under HS code 3004.
Respondent has denied benefit of ITC to the buyers of the flats being constructed by him in his ‘Runwal My City’ Project in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus profiteered an amount of Rs. 3,20,49,507/- from his customers, hence he has committed an offence under section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of the above Section.
