Issue involved in this case is valuation of waste/bye-product and the applicability of cum-duty price for the goods cleared. There is no dispute regarding liability of Central Excise duty.
CESTAT Delhi held that maintenance of pipelines are not exempted under any notification or provision or circular. Accordingly, the same is taxable under the category of ‘management, maintenance and repair’ services.
ITAT Mumbai held that compensation paid by the builder for facing hardship during redevelopment of flats is in nature of capital receipts and accordingly not liable to tax.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition based on such retracted statement of third person and that too without giving any opportunity of cross examination to the assessee deserves to be deleted.
Madras High Court directed the Chartered Accountant, who raised several allegations against the then President of the Institute, that if he is confident about the irregularities and has materials on record to establish the allegations, he is at liberty to register a case before the Competent Authority, including the Central Vigilance Commission or the Jurisdictional Police or otherwise.
Issue involved Whether department is enjoined to issue a notice under subsection 3 of Section 61 of CGST Act, 2017 once returns have been submitted by assessee before initiating action under Section 74 or not?
CESTAT Chennai held that in absence of foreign marking and any other cogent evidence, onus is on department to prove that the smuggled nature of the goods.
Bombay High Court held that license fee is the price or the consideration for parting with such privilege, which is exclusively owned and controlled by the State Government. Complying with provisions of section 13A of the Goa Public Gambling Act requires payment of the same.
Bombay High Court held that the Goa Value Added Tax (12th Amendment) Act, 2020 is an impermissible judicial override defying the doctrine of separation of powers. Accordingly, respondents, based on the same, cannot deny any of the petitioners the benefits of earlier judicial decisions.
Chhattisgarh High Court directed works contractor involved in construction of road, bridges, tolls, etc. to make fresh claim showing difference of tax liability that was incurred at the time of submission of bids and excess tax paid in light of introduction of GST levying higher tax on works contract services.
