Supreme Court

Supreme Court Expunges Gujarat HC's Adverse Observation Against GST Officials

Delhi High Court

Proper Officer Has To Consider Reply On Merits And Then Form An Opinion: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Canara Bank Versus Assistant Commissioner, DGST

The Delhi High Court has held that the proper officer has to consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion.

Madras High Court

Madras High Court Restrains Dept. From Appropriating Interest Liability Against Eicher Motors Until Matter Is Taken Up By Appellate Court

The Madras High Court has restrained the department from appropriating interest liability against Eicher Motors until the matter is taken up by the appellate court.

Allahabad High Court

Entry Tax | Indian Made Foreign Liquor Not Taxable Under UP Entry Of Goods Into Local Area Act 2007: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S United Spirits Limited v. State Of U.P.

The Allahabad High Court has recently quashed the assessment order taxing Indian Made Foreign Liquor under the UP Entry of goods into Local Area Act 2007 on grounds that it is not provided in the schedule to the Act.

S.58 UPVAT | In Revisional Jurisdiction, HC Must Uphold Sanctity Of Judgments/Orders, Must Intervene Only When There Are Compelling Reasons: Allahabad HC

Case Title: The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. V. M/S Godfrey Philips India Limited

While elaborating the difference between 'appeal' and 'revision', the Allahabad High Court has held that in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the High court must uphold the sanctity of judgments and orders and intervene only when there are compelling reasons to do so.

Confiscation & Penalty Order Must Be Quashed If Quantification Of Stock Based On Eye Estimate: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Eco Plus Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

The Allahabad High Court has held that once the Appellate Authority has recorded a specific finding that quantification of stock was based on eye estimate and not in accordance with law, the confiscation order as well as the penalty order are liable to be set aside.

S.16 UPVAT Act | Invoices, RTGS Details Not Sufficient For Deciding ITC Claim, Transportation Details Must Be Produced: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. S/S Soma Enterprises Ltd.

Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited, the Allahabad High Court has held that input tax credit cannot be granted based solely on invoices and RTGS payment details.

UPVAT | Intention To Evade Tax Essential For Imposition Of Penalty U/S 54(1)(2): Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Durga Steel Rolling Mills Thru. Partner Amit Arora v. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes U.P.Lucknow

The Allahabad High Court has held that intention to evade tax is essential condition for imposing penalty under Section 54(1)(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.

Jharkhand High Court

Jharkhand High Court Allows Application for Revocation of Cancelled GST Registration Despite Expiry of Limitation Period

In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has permitted the filing of an application for revocation of cancelled GST registration, despite the expiration of the limitation period.

Placement Agency To Be Given Proper SCN On Alleged Failure To Perform Duties Coupled With Monetary Loss To JSBCL: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Urmila International Services Private Limited Versus Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited

The Jharkhand High Court has held that Rule 15 of the Jharkhand Excise (Operation of Retail Product Shops through Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited) Rules, 2022, and the corresponding clauses of the contract have to be restricted only to those situations where the placement agency has been found, albeit after hearing the agency, to have failed to provide manpower to Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (JSBCL), which has resulted in pecuniary loss to the corporation.

CESTAT

Freight/Insurance Amount Is Not Includible In Assessable Value Of Goods For Charging Excise Duty: CESTAT

Case Title: Panama Petrochem Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C.E. & S.T.-Daman

Case Title: Shri Abbasbhai Teherali Bharmal Versus Commissioner of C.E. & S.T.-Rajkot

The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that cross-examination is necessary for arriving at a fair trial.

Service Tax Not Payable On Flats Constructed Prior To 01.07.2010, Having Less Than 12 Flats: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Sandeep N Savani Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that there is no tax liability on the appellant for the impugned flats constructed prior to July 1, 2010, having less than 12 units or flats.

Admissibility Of Discounts Passed On To Buyers Subsequent To Clearance, Is Eligible Deduction For Determination Of Assessable Value: CESTAT

Case Title: M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax

The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the admissibility of discounts that were passed on to the buyers and were known at the time of clearance of goods is an eligible deduction for the purpose of determining the assessable value.