Stay updated
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in M/s Noordeen Enterprises dismissed the writ petitions challenging the order-in-original assessing tax liability on the ground of fraudulent availment of ITC …
The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling, in Aditya Auto Products & Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. on GST charged by CSPs engaged for operating statutory factory canteens is admissible only to the extent of cost actually borne by the employer in respect of regular employees.
The Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of Manoja Kumar Nayak &Anr. v. Commissioner, GST & Central Excise & Ors. held that raising demand of tax equivalent to input tax credit already voluntarily reversed prior to
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Prime Metals heard the submissions of the petitioner’s counsel, directed that a copy of the petition be furnished to the learned Additional Solicitor General
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Tvl. SAM Enterprises & Ors. dismissed the writ petitions filed by the assessee-entities engaged in alleged circular trading of medical equipment supplies, thereby upholding the penalty orders passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act.
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Maruti Enterprise upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 and declined to read it down, holding that the condition of actual payment of tax to the Government is integral to the statutory ITC chain and that the purchaser carries the burden of proving eligibility.
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Niket Bipinbhai Patel held that ITC availed on charges paid to GIDC for sub-division and transfer of leasehold rights in plots cannot be treated as blocked credit u/s 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act and directed unblocking of ITC of ₹98,11,678 lying in the electronic credit ledger.
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt Ltd held that transfer of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on amalgamation is permissible under Section 18(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 41 of the CGST Rules, and such transfer cannot be denied merely because the transferor and transferee entities are located in different States.
A writ petition was filed challenging the denial of inter-state transfer of unutilized ITC pursuant to an NCLT-approved amalgamation, raising the legal question of whether such transfer could be denied on the ground that the transferor and transferee entities were registered in different States under the GST regime.
The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Micro Labs Limited held that distribution of common ITC through cross-charge mechanism by raising invoices under Section 31 of the CGST Act is permissible, and any order passed in disregard of the CBIC’s Circular No. 199/11/2023-GST dated July 17, 2023 is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction.