In re Ms. Umax Packaging (GST AAR Rajasthan) Whether ITC of IGST paid on ‘bill to ship to’ model admissible to the applicant? M/s Umax Packaging, Jodhpur is eligible to claim the input tax credit (ITC) of IGST paid on ‘bill to ship to’ model as per the relevant provisions of Section 16 and 17 […]
In re Indian Institute of Management (GST AAR Kolkata) Applicant, Indian Institute of Management (IIM) is an ‘Educational Institution’ within the meaning of sub-clause (ii) of clause 2(y) of the Exemption Notification in terms of the IIM Act. Exemption under Entry no. 66(a) is applicable to such educational institutions as such, especially as the law mentions […]
In re Premier Vigilance & Security Pvt Ltd (GST AAR West Bengal) Whether toll charges reimbursed by the clients are eligible for deduction u/r 33 from the value of supply? The toll is charged for providing the service by way of access to a road or bridge (SAC 9967). The Applicant, being the owner of […]
In re Premier Vigilance & Security Pvt Ltd (GST AAR West Bangal) Toll charges paid are not to be excluded from the value of supply under Rule 33. GST shall, therefore, be payable at the applicable rate on the entire value of the supply, including toll charges paid. The Applicant is not acting as a […]
Commissioner (A) has not respected the order of this Tribunal required to be penalized. Therefore, the ld. Commissioner (A) is directed to take care in future to avoid any penal action from this Tribunal.
Jagat Singh Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Ld. AR submitted that assessee owned two properties, first property is a farm house situated at Dera Mandi, New Delhi and second property is Gobind Mension, Bharatpur. It is submitted that farm house situated at Dera Mandi, New Delhi is self occupied property, and second property at Bharatpur is […]
Sabitha Riyaz Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court) The petitioner, a trader, transported natural rubber. After generating e-way bill, she sent a consignment to Uttarakhand, with all the relevant records. But it was seized by the State Tax Officer, Uttarakhand, the additional 11th respondent. The ground for detention is that in the e-way bill the […]
Surprisingly, neither the mobile squad authority nor the appellate authority appreciated the claim of the petitioner that it is due to mistake or human error the vehicle number (particularly last two digits) are mentioned different which in the instant case are 83 in place of 38. This Court is unhappy with the conduct of the authorities and it is nothing but a clear cut case of harassment of the petitioner/dealer.
Singh Tyres Vs State Of U.P. And Another (Allahabad High Court) From perusal of the record, we find that the goods were transported from one place to another within the State of U.P. and were accompanied by the requisite documents and requisite E-Way Bill has also been produced by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2 […]
Medisray Laboratories P. Ltd. Vs CCGST (CESTAT Mumbai) Coming to the statutory audit procedure, the purpose of audit, as available in the Manual published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in respect of EA audit and CERA audit under Chapter 17 is that the idea behind such conduct of verification is to reasonably […]
