Stay updated
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankar Rudra allowed the civil appeal and held that when the provisions of the UVAT Act does not provide for the dues of a limited company could be ascertained by the Director. Hence, recovery certificate and demand notice shall have not been issued to the Assessee.
The CESTAT, Allahabad in the case of M/s India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. allowed appeal and ruled that even if the interest is not claimed specifically by an Assessee, that does not absolve the Adjudicatory Authority from mandatory legal responsibility to grant interest on the amount refunded.
Blessed, that the recent ruling by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M/S. MUTHOOT FINANCE LIMITED ruled on 03.09.2024 aligns closely with the views I expressed in my article long ago.
The CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of Kanoria Energy & Infrastructure Ltd. held that an assessee may genuinely believe that duty is not leviable, while the department may believe that duty is leviable. The assessee may, therefore, not pay duty in the self-assessment carried out by the assessee, but this would not mean that the assessee has wilfully suppressed facts.
The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in the case of NJ India Invest Pvt. Ltd. allowed the appeal filed by setting aside the Service tax demand, thereby holding that incentives from AMCs for mutual fund distribution were exempt under reverse charge, advertisements in the ‘FUNDS WATCH’ magazine fell under print media exemption and training for sub-distributors was classified as exempt vocational training these all three are exempt from tax.
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs hereby fixes the following monetary limits below which appeal shall not be filed in the CESTAT, High Court and Supreme Court:
The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs M/s. Ambuja Cement Ltd. held that the Value Added Tax (VAT) paid on purchases should not be considered for computing taxable turnover of purchases as per Section 11(3)(b) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (GVAT Act).
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Combitic Global Caplet Pvt. Ltd. directed the Revenue Authority to rule the sanctioning authority to refund the amount in the CENVAT credit account in cash instead of crediting it to the CENVAT account.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Ludhiana has disposed the appeal filed by Revenue challenging earlier order passed in favour of the Respondent by the CESTAT, which had set aside the demand for service tax w.r.t revenue sharing agreement between Exhibitor and Distributor pertaining to showcasing of films/ movies.
The facts before the HC were that the petitioner transferred its intellectual property rights (IPRs) and goodwill through a Business Transfer Agreement (BTA). The BTA constituted a slump sale of the petitioner’s entire domestic formulation business for a lump sum consideration.