It appears from the description of the work that it improves the navigability of the river-bed and channels – an activity toward development of irrigation and waterways. It is, therefore, an activity in relation to the function listed under SI No. 5 of the Eleventh Schedule, as entrusted to a Panchayat under Article 243G of the Constitution of India. Exemption under SI No. 3A of the Exemption Notification is, therefore, applicable to the Applicant’s supply of the above works contract service.
In re Arihant Dredging Developers Private Limited (GST AAR West Bangal) It appears from the description of the work that it improves the navigability of the river-bed and channels – an activity toward development of irrigation and waterways. It is, therefore, an activity in relation to the function listed under SI No. 5 of the […]
In re M/s. Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd (GST AAR Gujarat) Question – 1 The Applicant is providing financial assistance in the form of loan to various Government of Gujarat entities, whether all such Gujarat Stated owned entities and GSFS become related persons in GST? Answer: The relationship between Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd. and […]
Hon’ble Patna High Court held that ITC availed but not utilized for tax payment doesn’t invite penal consequences of Section 73 of CGST Act, 2017 and interest cannot be recovered on mere availment of ITC which was not utilized
M/s. Amit Cotton Industries vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Gujarat High Court) Circular cannot run contrary to Statutory Provisions –Guj HC orders grant of IGST Refund. Facts: Writ-applicant had exported goods in July 2017. It is the case of the writ-applicant that it is eligible to seek refund of the IGST in accordance with the […]
Red Coin Paper Product Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Gujarat High Court) According to the writ applicant, the inaction on the part of the authority in not granting credit of input tax credit to the electronic credit ledger even after rejection of the refund claimed for the period of May, 2018, June, 2018 and July, […]
M/s. Kumar’s Electronics Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai) Once the service tax has been paid on the M.R.P no service tax needs to be paid on the commission received by the distributor because it is a part of the M.R.P. If tax is so levied, it amounts to double taxation. This view held […]
Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) The Petitioner’s grievance is that the Respondents are not issuing Form C in respect of its purchase of natural gas from Gujrat. This is used in the manufacture of polyester staple fibre. Primarily, the contention of the Petitioner is that the same […]
Mr. Mohammad Azid Ramzani Vs M/s Adarsh Marbles (National Anti-Profiteering Authority) It is revealed that the Central Govt. vide Notification No.41/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14.11.2017 had reduced the rate of GST from 28% to 18% in respect of the tiles with effect from 15.11.2017. the benefit of which was required to be passed on to […]
Sri Krishna Traders Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The writ-applicant is operating from the State of Tamil Nadu. It appears that the consignment of betel nuts was being transported from Vellor, State of Tamil Nadu, to Delhi. While the goods were in transit and passing through the State of Gujarat, the vehicle was […]
