Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Taxation serves as the cornerstone of governmental revenue, facilitating the provision of public services and infrastructure. Essential to this system is consistency, ensuring that similar factual and legal circumstances are met with uniform treatment.”
The Court clarified that there may be cases of arbitrary exercise of power under the anti-profiteering mechanism by enlarging the scope of the proceedings beyond the jurisdiction or on account of not considering the genuine basis of variations in other factors such as cost escalations on account of which the reduction stands offset, skewed input credit situations etc.
Calcutta High Court rejected the appellant’s argument, affirming that the time limit under Section 16(4) restricts the entitlement under Section 16(2).
“The petitioner herein, which has filed the present writ petition, is only a proprietorship firm and not a citizen and therefore cannot claim protection of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.”
The Explanation (iii) to Section 13, forbids the Assessing Authority as well as the assessee from raising any dispute regarding the allowability of the ITC in cases where exempted goods are being produced as a by-product or waste product during the process of manufacture
“Fiscal legislation having uniform application to all registered persons, cannot be said to be violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and the question of such statutory provision being violative of Article 302 of the Constitution and in teeth of Article 13 of the Constitution of India does not arise at all.”
by Urja Joshi† and Amisha Upadhyay††
Rajasthan High Court: The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Commercial Tax, Jodhpur wherein the GST registration of the
The Supreme Court stated that if the purchasing dealer fails to establish and prove the said important aspect of physical movement of the goods alleged to have been purchased by it from the concerned dealers and on which the ITC have been claimed, the Assessing Officer is absolutely justified in rejecting such ITC claim.
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by Loreal India Private Limited (petitioner) challenging the order dated 23-06-2022 passed by
Authority of Advanced Ruling (Karnataka): In an application filed to sought advance ruling on the question that, whether the applicant
On 16-7-2022 the Finance Department of Rajasthan has notified the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2022 to further amend the
Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Punjab: Arun Narayan Gupta Chief Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, and Kamal Kishor Yadav, Commissioner of State
Kerala Authority for Advance Ruling: S. Anilkumar, Additional Commissioner of Central Tax & B.S. Thyagarajababu, Joint Commissioner of State Tax decided whether
Karnataka High Court: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav J. disposed off the petition and reinstated an observation “If any money is due to
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula, JJ., upheld the validity of Sections 132 and 69 of the
Authority for Advance Ruling, GST: A Division Bench of Dr Ravi Prasad M.P. (Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) and MashhoodUr Rehman Farooqui (Joint
Himachal Pradesh, Authority for Advance Rulings: The Division Bench of Rakesh Sharma, Additional Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise, Member (State Tax) and
Authority for Advanced Ruling, Madhya Pradesh: The Bench comprising of Manoj Choubey (Joint Commissioner) and Virendra Jain (Joint Commissioner), ruled evenly in
Interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act can be levied on belated cash component of tax and not on Input Tax