-
Copy of Bombay HC order deferring the hearing of NAA petitions considering Revenue’s plea that a transfer application is pending in the Supreme Court. is now available on the portal.
Macrotech Developers Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3536 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
In the present case where the authorisation was for search and seizure of goods liable to confiscation, documents, books or things and the concerned officer converted it into a search for a person and an investigation, which is not otherwise backed by any statutory provision, it may be difficult to accept that such action was in good faith. Thus, Protection of such action under section 157 of the GST Acts may unleash a regime of terror insofar as the taxable persons are concerned.
Paresh Nathalal Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3535 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Since, in instant case, the control and possession of vehicles like trucks, tankers etc. shall be transferred to the lessee, who will engage operator and bear the cost of repair, insurance etc., it is therefore not classifiable under SAC 9966 which is restricted to rental services of transport vehicles with operator.
In the matter of Ishan Resins & Paints Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3532 (AAR)
-
Entry 10 of Notification No. 12/2017 -Central Tax (Rate) is not person-centric but project-centric and entry does not speak of contractor or sub-contractor but supply of pure services by way of construction under certain projects. Entry 10 of Notification No. 12/2017 -Central Tax (Rate) clearly stipulates that whosoever is supplying the pure labour contract services for the construction of a civil structure or any other original works under PMAY shall be exempted from GST.
In the matter of Sevk Ram Sahu
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3531 (AAR)
-
Applicant being a supplier of manpower services under SAC 99851 is exempted from GST is not valid as farm labour supply services are classified under Chapter Heading 9986.
In the matter of Manju Devi
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3530 (AAR)
-
2 conditions essential to categorize as a tour operator are, (i) bill issued for supply of tour operating service should be consolidated one i.e. inclusive of accommodation & transportation charges and (ii) ITC of goods & services used in supplying the service (except ITC of input service in the same business line) has not been taken.
In the matter of Crown Tours and Travels
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3529 (AAR)
-
Under the scheme of IGST, supplies to SEZ unit and SEZ developer are treated at par with physical exports. The exporting units to compete with world market need raw materials without payment of taxes and duties and either the denial of zero-rated tax benefit or calling upon the assessee to pay 18% tax and claim refund is not in line with statutory scheme.
Lalitha Muraleedharan vs. The Range Forest Office, The Pr. Chief Conservator and The Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3528 (HC-KERALA)
-
The entire concept of refund of ITC relating to zero-rated supply would be obliterated if the Revenue were permitted to put any limitation and condition that takes away assessee’s right to claim refund of all the taxes paid on the domestic purchases used for the purpose of zero-rated supplies.
Pitambra Books Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3527 (HC-DELHI)
-
It is not open for the authorities to reject the applications/bid for non compliance of the condition(s) not mentioned or highlighted in the tender notification. The action of the Revenue in rejecting the tender application/technical bid of the petitioner as arbitrary, contrary to the tender notification, liable to be set aside.
Bhagwati Construction Company vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3523 (HC-HP)
-
As the notice for confiscation has been issued, it is expected of the writ applicant now to file an appropriate detailed reply to the same, for the purpose of getting such notice discharged.
AVH Corporation vs. State of Gujarat
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3522 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
All proceedings pursuant to penalty order shall be kept in abeyance till a decision is rendered on the appeal.
Sobha Ltd vs. The Assistant State Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3521 (HC-KERALA)
-
Petitioner is directed to provide requisite proof in form of monthly returns to establish that the tax on goods was paid. If the tax is not paid, then petitioner shall provide a bank guarantee of the tax amount within two weeks.
Brij Gopal Gupta vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3520 (HC-DELHI)
-
The petitioner was awarded two separate works against which tax was deducted but the petitioner was not extended credit for the same despite repeated reminders.
Raju K. Thomas vs. The State Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3519 (HC-KERALA)
-
Period of one year has elapsed since the interim order directing release of bank accounts of the assessee was passed by the co-ordinate bench. The life of an order of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act is one year i.e. December 27, 2019 in present case and no fresh order of provisional attachment has been passed.
Messrs Mono Steel (India) Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3518 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Release of consignment and vehicle subject to petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount determined in the notice is directed.
Shaji George vs. The Commissioner Kerala State Goods and Service Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3517 (HC-KERALA)
-
The object and intention of legislature to endow Commissioner with power of attachment under Section 83 is very clear. It is drastic and far-reaching power which must be used sparingly and only on substantive weighty grounds and reasons.
Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3516 (HC-P&H)
-
The order of provisional attachment as well as the order of prohibition are not sustainable on two counts, i.e. the order has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the order has been passed without any credible materials.
Enprocon Enterprise Ltd. vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3515 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Copy of Madras HC order staying the order of allowing transition of Education Cess (EC), Secondary & Higher Education Cess (SHEC) & Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) into GST which is passed by a single Judge is now available on the portal.
Sutherland Global Services Ltd Vs Revenue
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3513 (HC-MADRAS)
-
The complainant had himself withdrawn the complaint and despite that the authority had continued to proceed with the matter which is not permissible under Section 171 or the Rules made thereunder.
Shree Mahalakshmi Enterprises Vs Revenue
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3512 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Plaintiff took no action for nearly 10 years after issuing a legal notice to the them, asserting the same right as far back as in 2009. Despite it being so, the fact today remains that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark w.r.t. rice, and Defendants who have disclaimed all rights in the mark, can’t be permitted to defeat the rights accruing from a registered mark.
In the matter of Adani Wilmar Ltd. vs. Baljit Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3511 (HC-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.