The petitioners cannot be allowed to make separate entry when frooti is covered within the specific entry and residuary entry cannot be resorted into. In the considered opinion of this Court, both the authorities are absolutely justified in holding that frooti is a product covered by Entry 14 of Schedule II of the Chhattisgarh Entry Tax Act, 1976.
Mr. Meet Shah Vs Union of India, Ministry of Railway (Competition Commissioner of India) Railway and IRCTC (Opposite Parties) have not been able to convince the Commission as to why the policy of rounding off of actual base fares to the next higher multiple of Rs.5 is applicable to the sale of online tickets, when […]
Smt. Ranjana R. Deshmukh Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Admittedly, though the assessee had entered into an agreement to purchase the new property viz. A-801, Lodha Luxuria on 29.01.2009, but then the possession of the same was delivered to her only as on 18.05.2012. We are persuaded to subscribe to the claim of the ld. A.R […]
Nutan Malpani Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad) We noticed that when the assessee is having a regular business connection with the company and in that process, assessee receives or pays certain advances, they can be considered as ‘trade advances’ and not otherwise. In the given case, certain transactions which were treated by the Assessing Officer as […]
In re Siemens Ltd. (GST AAR Haryana) 1. Whether the freight charges recovered by the Applicant under the contract from the customer without issuance of consignment note will be eligible for exemption from CGST as prescribed in Serial no. 18 of Notification no. 12/2017 – Central Tax Rate F. No. 334/1/2017, dated 28 June 2017? […]
It is hard to notice the thickness, seal, embossment or any other identification marks used to check the authenticity of identity card if the same is laminated to make it glossy and water proof. The lamination destroys the legality of an identity card for all intents and purposes since it becomes difficult to compare the signature therein with that in the Register.
Euro Pratik LE vs UOI (Bombay High Court ) Case Summary The Petitioner is a wholesaler, importer and distributor of decorative sheets, which are used for furniture manufacturing. The petitioner was not registered under central laws in Pre-GST regime. As per section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’) r.w. […]
Velankani Electronics Private Limited Vs Intel Corporation (Competition commission of India) The OP has also argued that it has no incentive to deny access to anyone to the Server or Server-Board market segment. The OP’s interests are aligned to ensure multiple manufacturers of Server-Boards and Servers. Since the OP’s primary focus in the Server business […]
Kerala High Court has held that penalty cannot be imposed for not producing the goods (before the officer) after release on bond, when there is a security equivalent to value of goods which could be invoked. It noted that there was no question of tax and penalty being not paid as bank guarantee could be invoked at any time.
HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC, New Delhi (CESTAT Delhi) We are in agreement with the finding of the ld. Adjudicating authority that CHA helps not properly verified the functioning of the client from at the declared address by using reliable independent and authenticate documents. This was a serious lapse on part of the […]
