Stay updated
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ASP Traders held that despite payment of tax and penalty under Section 129(1), the proper officer is obligated to pass a reasoned order under Section 129(3) to enable statutory appeals, and the deeming fiction under Section 129(5) does not absolve this duty where objections have been filed and payment made under protest.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Additional Director Directorate General of GST Intelligence & Anr held that no interference was warranted against the Delhi High Court’s decision quashing GST demand on license fees collected by Central and Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commissions.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. held that no interference was warranted with the Gujarat High Court’s judgment granting refund based on the modified formula of Inverted Duty Structure (IDS) Refund under Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Navi Mumbai disposed of the case and held that the Court did not find any good ground and reason to interfere with the CESTAT Judgment, where it was held that no service tax should be charged on reimbursement of expenses because no service element is involved.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Delhi-I v. Ambassador Sky Chef [Diary…
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue Department (“the Petitioner”) after a delay of 229 days. The SLP was against the Delhi High Court Judgment which permitted the refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CCR to M/s BT India (Private) Limited (“the Respondent”) and held that finalised assessment cannot be reopened in refund proceedings absent any challenge to self-assessed returns.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. upheld the rights of the telecom operators and infrastructure companies to claim CENVAT credit on infrastructure duties and upheld the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the Vodafone Mobile Services Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi and over turned the contrary ruling of Bombay High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Commissioner Central Excise, Pune- III
No, the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. M/s Shankara Infrastructure Materials Ltd. [arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 5504 of 2022 dated October 14, 2024] granted leave and allowed the appeal and disposed of the case. The respondent M/s. Shankara Infrastructure Materials Ltd. was duly served notice, however, no appearance was made before the officer. Further, on July 19, 2024, the case was last listed. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (petitioner) contended that the case was covered by the judgment of State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited [Civil Appeal No. 230 of 2023] and alleged that the case is of bogus claim without any actual transactions. Hence, the Assessee cannot claim the Input Tax Credit.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Iron and Steel Manufacturers Association dismissed the review petition filed against the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mineral Area Development Authority v. M/s. Steel Authority of India and Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 4056-4064 of 1999 dated July 25, 2024] wherein it was held that the royalty paid to the government would not fall within the purview of tax.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Services & Ors. upheld the validity of Section 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, rejecting the constitutional challenge.