Tribunal/CESTAT is utterly unjustified in rejecting the appeal before it on a hyper-technical ground i.e. an apparent defect in the appeal format. Ordinarily a judicial tribunal – like CESTAT is expected to permit rectification of such an obvious error; that it instead chose to dismiss the appeal altogether is shocking to say the least.
Transparency and openness in judicial appointments juxtaposed with confidentiality of deliberations remain one of the most delicate and complex areas. Clearly, the position is progressive as well as evolving as steps have been taken to make the selection and appointment process more transparent and open. Notably, there has been a change after concerns were expressed on disclosure of the names and the reasons for those who had not been approved. The position will keep forging new paths by taking into consideration the experiences of the past and the aspirations of the future
In re Specsmakers Opticians Private Limited (GST AAAR Tamil Nadu) The issue before us relates to determination of value to be adopted in respect of supply to distinct persons of the appellant in the course of business. appellant, has claimed before the Lower Authority that applying the Second Proviso to Rule 28 of CGST Rules […]
In re Sanghvi Movers Limited (GST AAAR Tamilnadu) The appellant is eligible to avail full input tax credit of tax paid by SML Ho on the lease/hire of cranes to them for furtherance of business, subject to other conditions of eligibility to such credit as per section 16 of CGST/TNGST Act 2017 Applying the statutory […]
M/s. Aadinath Industries & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) The Petitioner in that case had also filed the TRAN-I Form within the prescribed period. However, on account of an inadvertent error, the columns had not been correctly filled up and consequently, the ITC was not granted to the petitioner. The […]
Thus, we direct the respondent to either open the online portal so as to enable the petitioner to file the rectified TRAN-I Form electronically, or to accept the same manually with correction, on or before 20.09.2019.
MEIS benefit available even if concerned box not checked in shipping bill: In a case where the exporter did not check the concerned box in the shipping bill to read ‘Yes’ against the query with regard to intention to claim MEIS benefit, but in the column meant for description had clearly indicated his intention to avail the benefit of the said export promotion scheme, Kerala High Court has directed the department to consider claim for benefit under MEIS.
Pr. CIT (Central) Vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court) 1. The present Application has been filed for Recall of the Judgment dated 05.03.2019 passed by this Court in C.A. No. 2463 of 2019, on the ground that the Applicant – Company was not served with the Notice of the SLP at the […]
Uninav Developers Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India And Ors (Delhi High Court) It was held that the entire GST system is still in a trial and error phase and it will be too much of a burden to place on the assessees to expect them to comply with the requirement of law where they […]
The appellant does not offer ‘convention services’ but gets events organised by professionals and, by collecting fees which are transmitted to such organisers, enables its members to participate in them. There is no allegation that any part of the fees charged by convention organisers is retained by the appellant. Thus, the activity is beyond the purview of taxability under section 65 (105) (zc) of Finance Act, 1994.
