Central Sales tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules 1957, for furnishing of the portion marked ‘original’ of the Declaration Forms ‘C’, ‘E-I’ or ‘E-II’, ‘F’, ‘I’, ‘J’, and ‘H’ respectively, as per the following time schedule for the year 2011-12:-
After going through the various schedules appended with the DVAT Act and judgment passed in the case of M/s Rich Graviss Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, U.P., Lucknow by Commercial Taxes, Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow (Full Bench), I am of the considered view that that item i.e. ‘Non-Dairy Whipp Topping’ is preparation of fats […]
After going through the various schedules appended with the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, I am of the considered view that items Patang Dor, Patang Manjha and Patang Charkhi are not covered by any other entry of any other schedule appended to the said Act and hence is an unspecified items under section (4) […]
Vide Order No. 71 of 2013 dated 25.04.2013, the CBDT has posted several Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax (probationers) in the Pay Scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100 (Plus Grade pay of Rs. 5,400 in PB-3), on completion of training at National Academy of Direct Taxes, Nagpur in the Region of CCIT(CCA)/Station/Charge indicated against each with immediate effect and until further orders.
n exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule(4) of rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the Central Board of Excise & Customs hereby extends the date of submission of the Form ST-3, for the period from 1st October 2012 to 31st March 2013, from 25th April, 2013 to 31st August, 2013. The circumstanc
Learned counsel very earnestly argued that the CCI was incorrect in firstly deciding upon the relevant market and secondly on the aspect of the respondent being a dominant player in the market. The learned counsel wanted to rely on the prospectus of the respondent which, in our view, would be an irrelevant document to decide the dominance in the market. The informant was expected to point out as to how the respondent enjoyed the dominant position in the market, by collection of evidence and the facts. That unfortunately seems not to have been done by the informant. We cannot find fault, under the circumstances, with the finding of the CCI that the respondent was not enjoying the dominant position in the market. Once that factual position is arrived at, there will be no question of contravention of Section 4 of the Act. If the respondent was not dominant, there was no question of the abuse of dominance.
Due date for filing of service tax returns in Form ST-3 for the period 1st July, 2012 to 30th September 2012 was extended from 15th April, 2013 to 30th April, 2013. Considering the difficulties in filing returns, causing inconvenience to the assessee, the CBEC had revised the due date of filing ST-3 Return. CBEC extends […]
Commission has no jurisdiction to hand over the possession of plot in question to the complainant; that is the task of the Civil Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the closest term has restrained to this Commission from assuming the power of the Civil Court. It is also clarified in the paragraph that this Court cannot grant any specific performance.
There cannot be any dispute that Karanataka High Court has specifically held that the provisions of the MRTP Act were not and could not be applicable to the educational institutions. There is no dispute that the present complaint also pertains to the educational institution and its activity of imparting education.
Sub-rule (1) of Rule 67 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 and Rule 4 of the Central Sales Tax(Delhi) Rules, 2005 for furnishing of reconciliation return in Form DVAT-51; and,
