Held that the Hyderabad office is not required to act as an input service distributor (ISD) as there is no head office-branch office basis relation between the Hyderabad office and other offices. Accordingly procedure under Rule 4A of the Services Tax Rules, 1994 not required to be followed.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty levied for late filing of Profession Tax Return is penal in nature accordingly is not allowable as business expenditure.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as ‘information technology software service’ was implemented w.e.f. 16.05.2008 the same cannot be held taxable prior to that date. Hence, demand for the period prior to 16.05.2008 is not maintainable.
CESTAT Chennai held that ‘Squid Liver Powder’ being a high-quality feed ingredient for aqua feed and all type diet for animals, the product which is not for exclusive use for fish, prawn etc. has been correctly classified under CTH 23099090.
Held that the petitioner is plying the vehicles in the Central Deposit Yard premises itself proves that the premises does not fall under the definition of ‘public place’ as under Section 2 sub Section (34) of the Act. Hence, motor vehicle tax not leviable.
Karnataka High Court provided guidelines relating to applicability of tax on works executed prior to 01.07.2017 and works executed after 01.07.2017 in case of where work contract is executed between the petitioners and the State/ other Government agencies.
In the case of Kalpataru Project International Ltd Vs Union of India, the Andhra Pradesh High Court examines the jurisdiction issue regarding a notice proposing revision of VAT refund. Stay of proceedings is granted until further orders. Get the full judgment and analysis in this article.
HC set aside the assessment order and held a proper opportunity must be given to the Assessee whenever a Show cause notice or an assessment order is issued and further commented that it is very difficult to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice within 12 hours.
CESTAT Mumbai held that section 14 of Customs Act, 1962, or any Rules framed thereunder, is not of relevance to the rough diamonds as the same are leviable to NIL duty as per the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
NCLAT Chennai held that subsequent to the approval of the Resolution Plan of the CoC and before the approval by the Adjudicating Authority, no modifications / alterations can be called for as IBC is a time bound process.
