|
Advanced Search Options
GST - Case Laws
Showing 13901 to 13912 of 13912 Records
-
2017 (7) TMI 542
GST on legal services - Constitutional validity of Section 9 (4) of CGST Act - collection of GST on ‘reverse charge’ basis from a person registered under the CGST Act, IGST Act or DGST Act in respect of goods supplied and services received by such person from a person who has not been so registered - whether the impugned Notification No.13/2017 dated 28th and 30th June, 2016 cover all legal services not restricted to representational services rendered by legal practitioners?
Whether there is any requirement of registration by legal practitioners and/or firms rendering legal services under the CGST Act or the IGST Act or the DGST Act even if they are earlier registered under the FA?
Held that:- As of date there is no clarity on whether all legal services (not restricted to representational services) provided by legal practitioners and firms would be governed by the reverse charge mechanism. If in fact all legal services are to be governed by the reverse charge mechanism than there would be no purpose in requiring legal practitioners and law firms to compulsorily get registered under the CGST, IGST and/or DGST Acts. Those seeking voluntary registration would anyway avail of the facility under Section 25 (3) of the CGST Act (and the corresponding provision of the other two statutes). There is therefore prima facie merit in the contention of Mr Mittal that the legal practitioners are under a genuine doubt whether they require to get themselves registered under the three statutes. In the circumstances, the Court directs that no coercive action be taken against any lawyer or law firms for non-compliance with any legal requirement under the CGST Act, the IGST Act or the DGST Act till a clarification is issued by the Central Government and the GNCTD and till further orders in that regard by this Court.
It is clarified that any lawyer or law firm that has been registered under the CGST Act, or the IGST Act or the DGST Act from 1st July, 2017 onwards will not be denied the benefit of such clarification as and when it is issued.
It is further clarified that if an appropriate clarification is not able to be issued by the Respondents 1 and 2 by the next date, the Court will proceed to consider passing appropriate interim directions.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1403
Challenge to order of appropriation - HELD THAT:- There is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the dues towards Responsive Industries Ltd. was more than Rs. 5 crores. It is also not disputed that Responsive Industries Ltd. has deposited Rs. 5 crores with the department. The amount which is lying in excess with the department was appropriated for the dues of the sister concern – Axiom Cordages Ltd. No provision of law has been pointed out that the same is not permissible.
Thus, no interference is called for - petition disposed off.
-
2017 (4) TMI 1599
Issue notice as to why this petition for writ be not accepted, as prayed - HELD THAT:- Issue notice of the stay application also. Notices be given 'dasti' to learned counsel for the petitioner to effect service upon the respondents. The Rule issued is made returnable within a period of six weeks.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1889
Grant of stay against recovery - HELD THAT:- The interim order shall continue till the Tribunal considers the petitioner’s application for interim reliefs and for a period of two weeks thereafter in the event of the order being adverse to the petitioner. This, however, is provided that the petitioner files the appeal and takes out an application for interim reliefs before the Tribunal by 31.03.2017. The Tribunal shall consider whether to permit the petitioner to rely upon the pleadings in this petition which includes the replies of the respondents as well.
Petition disposed off.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1716
Compounding rate of tax - bar attached hotel of and below two star - section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 - whether the assessee would be able to opt as between Clauses (a) and (b) of S. 7(1)(i)? - HELD THAT:- When Clause (b) of S. 7(1)(i) applies, the amount of tax is a pre-determined amount. That is dependent upon the turnover of the three previous consecutive years. Therefore, even when assessee proceeds to seek payment of tax at compounded rate under S. 7(1) for a particular year, he would be guided by books of accounts which are in that person's possession itself. Hence, no fresh assessment as known to law is required. There are no jurisdictional error in either the assessing authority having required the assessee to pay the differential in terms of S. 7 or the Accountant General's office or the squad of that office having prompted the assessing authority to proceed to make demand for the remaining amount.
Assessee, ultimately, argued that the assessee was essentially falling into a trap of misrepresentation by the assessing authority - HELD THAT:- This argument only to be rejected because there is no question of any misrepresentation of any nature, since the payment of tax consequent on an option exercised by the assessee does not depend upon any representation of the assessing authority or any other statutory authority under the Act. What we say now is in tandem with what we have already said as to the automatic flow of the consequences of option. Further, there is no question of the assessee opting either for a particular rate of tax or for opting as between Clauses (a) and (b) of S. 7(1)(i) of the Act adverse to the interest of the Revenue.
Revision dismissed.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2831
Violation of principles of natural justice - grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned assessment – cum – penalty proceedings were issued by the 1st respondent – Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on the grounds which were not mentioned in the show cause notice and also without furnishing the copies of the material relied on for passing the impugned order - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in case of M/S. CHITAMBER AGENCIES VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE I, FLOOR [2015 (7) TMI 1414 - TELEGANA HIGH COURT] where it was held that considering the fact that the assessment orders are set aside, it is deemed appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to furnish the details to the petitioners within a period of four (4) weeks from today and complete the assessment proceedings within a period of three (3) months thereafter.
The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgement mentioned.
-
2015 (7) TMI 1414
Validity of assessment order - assessment was made alleging that the petitioners had purchased the goods falling under 5th schedule the purchase details from whom the petitioners had purchased had not been set out - HELD THAT:- In the facts of the present case and in the circumstances the assessment order is set aside. However, considering the fact that the assessment orders are set aside, it is deemed appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to furnish the details to the petitioners within a period of four (4) weeks from today and complete the assessment proceedings within a period of three (3) months thereafter. It is needless to mention that the petitioners shall be entitled to raise all the objections both on facts and law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1186
Detention of goods with vehicle - section 129(1) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - deposit of tax and penalty under protest - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has already deposited tax and the penalty under section 129(1A) of the GST Act, the respondents are directed to forthwith release the Truck No.GJ-04-AW-0962 along with the goods contained therein.
Issue Notice returnable on 19.06.2019.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1537
The Supreme Court of India in 2013 (10) TMI 1537 - SC Order, with Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose presiding, condoned delay in filing S.L.P. and granted leave. Petitioner represented by Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Adv., and others, while Respondent represented by Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Adv., and others.
-
2008 (9) TMI 1012
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of various sections and clauses of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972, as amended by the Assam Agricultural Produce Market (Amendment) Act, 2000, and the Assam Agricultural Produce Market (Amendment) Act, 2006.
2. Refund of cess collected under the impugned legislations.
3. Legislative competence and repugnancy with central laws.
4. Quid pro quo between the cess collected and services rendered.
5. Authority of the Assam State Agricultural Marketing Board to levy and collect cess.
6. Establishment and operation of check gates for collection of cess.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutional Validity of Various Sections and Clauses:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 3D, 3E, Clause (ii) and (iii) of Explanation-1 to Section 21, as well as Sections 21(1), 21(2), 21(3), 21A, 23, and 25(xiii) of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972, as amended by the Amendment Acts of 2000 and 2006. The court held that the legal fiction created by Explanation-1 to Section 21, which presumes sale or purchase of agricultural produce in the market area under certain conditions, is valid. This fiction is rebuttable and aims to prevent evasion of cess. The court found that the amendments were in alignment with the Model Act, 1998, and did not violate the legislative intent.
2. Refund of Cess Collected:
The petitioners sought a refund of the cess collected from 13.08.2001 to 08.12.2005. The court held that the petitioners are not entitled to any refund prior to 13.08.2001. For the period after this date, the court directed the formation of a committee to scrutinize the claims for refunds based on the individual facts and documents produced by the parties. The committee will include representatives from the government, the Board, the concerned Market Committees, and the traders.
3. Legislative Competence and Repugnancy with Central Laws:
The petitioners argued that the amendments were repugnant to the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, a central legislation. The court held that the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act does not occupy the same legislative field as the Sale of Goods Act and is not repugnant to it. The legal fiction in Section 21 does not conflict with the Sale of Goods Act as it is a rebuttable presumption and does not alter the essential attributes of a sale.
4. Quid Pro Quo Between the Cess Collected and Services Rendered:
The court examined whether there was a quid pro quo between the cess collected and the services rendered by the Board and Market Committees. The court found that the Board had undertaken substantial investments in market infrastructure, including godowns, auction platforms, and other facilities. The court held that the cess collected was being utilized for authorized purposes under the Act and there was a reasonable correlation between the cess and the services rendered.
5. Authority of the Assam State Agricultural Marketing Board to Levy and Collect Cess:
The petitioners challenged the authority of the Board to levy and collect cess. The court upheld the validity of Section 21(2), which empowers the Board to levy and collect cess on behalf of any or all Market Committees with the approval of the State Government. The court found that this provision does not violate the scheme of the Act and is necessary to prevent evasion of cess.
6. Establishment and Operation of Check Gates:
The petitioners argued that the establishment of check gates by the Board was illegal. The court held that the establishment of check gates is authorized under Section 21A of the Act, as amended by Act 2000 and Act 2006. The court found that the check gates are necessary to prevent evasion of cess and are not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the constitutional validity of the impugned sections and clauses of the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972, as amended. The court directed the formation of a committee to scrutinize claims for refunds of cess collected after 13.08.2001. The court found no repugnancy between the Assam Act and the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The court also upheld the authority of the Assam State Agricultural Marketing Board to levy and collect cess and the establishment of check gates to prevent evasion of cess. The petitions were partly allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2008 (6) TMI 628
Issues involved:
Classification of GLA-120 Capsules under KGST Act
Summary:
The assessee, a registered dealer under KGST Act, filed annual returns conceding a total turnover for certain assessment years, including sales of GLA-120 Capsules. The assessing authority treated the capsules as food supplement taxable at 20% under Entry No. 87 of the First Schedule. The Tribunal upheld this decision based on previous rulings. The core issue is whether GLA-120 Capsules should be classified under Entry 87, Entry 56, or as an unclassified item under the residuary entry.
The assessee argued different classifications before various authorities, claiming it should be treated as an unclassified item, under Entry 56, or as Medicine under Entry 79. The product manual described GLA-120 as containing Gamma Linolenic Acid for nerve growth/functioning, particularly for diabetic neuropathy. The assessing authority classified it under Entry 87 for non-alcoholic drinks and similar items, while the residuary entry taxed unclassified goods at 12.5%.
The Tribunal noted the distinction between dietary supplements and medicines, emphasizing the need for clear categorization based on usage. Since no authority determined the nature of GLA-120, the court set aside all previous orders and directed the assessing authority to reevaluate the classification, considering the purpose of the product. The reassessment must be completed within six months, affording the assessee a fair hearing.
In conclusion, the court ordered the closure of pending applications and disposed of the revision petitions accordingly.
-
1958 (9) TMI 99
Issues Involved:
1. Whether dividends received from Plantation Companies constitute agricultural income exempt under Section 4(3) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Whether compensation received for loss of managing agency is assessable as trading profit under the Income-tax, Excess Profits Tax, and Business Profits Tax Acts.
3. Whether credit balances in various accounts form part of the 'reserve' within the meaning of rule 2(1) of Schedule II of the Business Profits Tax Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Agricultural Income Exemption:
The question was whether dividends of Rs. 36,820 and Rs. 32,603 received in the previous years for assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51 from Plantation Companies, whose main business was agriculture, could be said to include any agricultural income exempt under Section 4(3) of the Income-tax Act. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. Commr. of Income-tax Bombay, which concluded that dividends do not constitute agricultural income. Thus, the question was answered in the negative and against the assessee.
2. Compensation for Loss of Managing Agency:
The relevant facts were that the assessee, incorporated in the UK, was involved in managing agencies of Plantation Companies. Compensation of Rs. 60,000 was received from Tallier Estates Ltd. for the loss of a managing agency. The department treated this as a trading receipt for tax purposes, but the Tribunal had upheld the assessee's claim that it was a capital receipt not liable to tax. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax v. South India Pictures Ltd., which emphasized that the nature of the receipt must be determined based on the substance of the matter from a business perspective.
The court noted that managing agencies were part of the assessee's normal trading activities and that the termination of one such agency did not significantly affect the overall business structure. The compensation received was considered to be in the ordinary course of business and thus constituted a trading receipt. The first question was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.
3. Credit Balances as 'Reserve':
The question was whether the credit balances in the capital profits accounts, profit and loss account, and business profits tax post-war refund suspense account formed part of the 'reserve' of the assessee within the meaning of rule 2(1) of Schedule II of the Business Profits Tax Act. The relevant chargeable accounting periods were specified, and the assessee claimed an "abatement" under rule 2(1). The Tribunal upheld the claim, but the court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and applied in Commr. of Income-tax v. Vasantha Mills Ltd.
The court noted that the sums in question represented undistributed profits and needed to be specifically set apart for any purpose on the crucial date to constitute reserves. The Tribunal had not applied these principles when upholding the claim. The court directed the Tribunal to re-examine the question, allowing both the assessee and the department to present relevant material. The Tribunal was instructed to submit a further statement of the case within three months.
Conclusion:
The court answered the first and second questions against the assessee, determining that dividends from Plantation Companies are not agricultural income and that compensation for loss of a managing agency is a trading receipt. The third question was remitted back to the Tribunal for further examination based on the principles laid down by higher courts.
....
|
9911796707
