The issue was whether IGST paid by mistake could be adjusted against CGST and SGST. The Court held that no such adjustment is permitted and directed payment of correct tax with refund claim for IGST.
The issue involved an additional tax demand on unbilled revenue. The Court found that the authority failed to consider the reply and remanded the matter for fresh review.
The case examined allegations of inflated and discriminatory pricing in supply of a critical railway component. The Commission held that price changes were attributable to currency fluctuations, logistics, and quantity, and found no abuse of dominance.
The Commission held that bidders colluded by quoting identical and patterned prices across multiple tenders. It found that such conduct indicated pre-determined outcomes and violated competition law.
The issue was whether ITC can be denied if suppliers fail to deposit tax. The Court held that bona fide purchasers cannot be penalized, and action must be taken against defaulting suppliers.
The issue concerned release of ₹58 lakh seized during GST search. The Court disposed of the petition after authorities agreed to release the amount within ten days, while allowing further legal action if required.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that the Air Travel Agents are not required to pay Service Tax on the Commission received by them from CDS/CRS companies. Also held that Air Travel Agents need not include the commission on fuel surcharge in the basic fare for payment of Service Tax.
ITAT Delhi held that Advertisement, Marketing & Promotion expense [AMP expense] incurred by Make My Trip wholly and exclusively for the business is not capital in nature. Further, since AMP expense is not an international transaction, adjustment by TPO rightly deleted.
The case addresses withdrawal of an advance ruling request before its pronouncement. The authority permitted withdrawal under Regulation 20, leaving the classification and duty issues undecided.
The Court declined interference as proceedings were already initiated by both departments. Petitioners were directed to respond to notices through proper channels.
