In re Gitwako Farms (India) Private Limited (GST AAAR Rajasthan) We reject the appeal filed by the appellant and uphold the Advance Ruling dated 22.04.2019, rendered by the Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling, Goods & Services Tax, Jaipur, holding that supply of Branded Frozen Chicken packed by the appellant in individual LDPE bag in pre-determined […]
In re Commissioner, CGST (Respondent –NES Global Specialist Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd.) (GST AAAR Maharashtra) We observe that Respondent had filed application before the Advance Ruling Authority asking for ruling as to whether the services being provided by them to their overseas client i.e. M/s NES Abu Dhabi in terms of the subject MSA Agreement […]
Technical laminated Fabrics woven out of strips below 5 mm fit fort use as Pond liner are Laminated Textiles Products and are covered under HSS Code 5911.
Yashdeep Singh Saini Vs Naya Raipur Development Authority (Chhattisgarh High Court) At the first instance, it will show that the petitioners’ land were acquired by the respondents. It has to be born in mind that the said acquisition was not as like of a general contract of a sale & purchase on free will of […]
Delhi High Court has held that statement of directors of company who were co-noticees cannot be in every case need to be cross examined under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 138 of Customs Act, 1962. It was held that statement of directors cannot be called as statement simplicitor but a statement as that of the company.
The CGST Act itself provides for the lapsing of the ITC at Sections 17(4) and 18(4) respectively of the CGST Thus, where the legislature wanted the ITC to lapse, it has been expressly provided for in the Act itself. No such express provision has been made in Section 54(3) of the CGST Act.
CESTAT Chennai has held that the difference in the declared value and the value in the NIDB database does not constitute in itself a ‘reasonable doubt’ needed to reject the transaction value under Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods), 2007. It was held that simply because the value declared by the appellant is lower than the value found in the NIDB database, the value cannot be revised by the department.
M/s Sri Siddhi Kalko Bhagavan Stone Crusher Vs The Assistant Commissioner ST (Andhra Pradesh High Court) In this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the rejection order, dated 22.09.2018, of the learned Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST), Vijayawada, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was rejected on the […]
Issuing of notice under section 142(1) in the name of amalgamating company despite of the fact that AO was already known that amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, that jurisdictional notice in the name of amalgamating company was invalid.
Wholesale Trading Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs ICAI (Delhi High Court) Conclusion: Since Appellant-company was carrying on the activity of filing and pursuing complaints against various Chartered Accountants as an organised activity, independent of the objects for which it was incorporated, therefore, it was held that litigants, such as assessee, who had made litigation their business/vocation […]
