Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Tax Updates - TMI e-Newsletters

Home e-Newsletters Index Year 2024 September Day 26 - Thursday

TMI e-Newsletters FAQ
You need to Subscribe a package.

Newsletter: Where Service Meets Reader Approval.

TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
September 26, 2024

Case Laws in this Newsletter:

GST Income Tax Customs Insolvency & Bankruptcy PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Indian Laws



Articles


News


Notifications


Highlights / Catch Notes

    GST

  • Academic institute faces GST hurdle on electricity charges to commercial occupants.

    The ruling pertains to the applicability of GST on electricity charges recovered by IIT Roorkee from its commercial occupants. The key points are: IIT Roorkee sought an advance ruling on whether GST is applicable on the electricity charges it recovers from commercial occupants, representing only reimbursement of actual costs charged by the power corporation. The authority held that the issue raised is identical to the one already decided in the applicant's own case under audit proceedings. As per Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, the authority can reject an application if it concerns an issue already decided for the applicant. Since the applicant approached the authority again on an identical issue already decided, the application was rejected without examining the merits, as it is not maintainable u/s 98(2) of the CGST Act and UK GST Act.

  • Unfair tax adjudication under UP GST Act - Petitioner's right to personal hearing denied. Court intervenes, directs fresh hearing.

    Principles of natural justice violated in tax adjudication process under U.P. GST Act, 2017. No opportunity for personal hearing provided to petitioner despite request in reply to show cause notice. Writ petition allowed, impugned order dated 17.08.2022 set aside. Assessing Officer directed to fix date, time, and place for personal hearing within two weeks of receiving certified copy of order, as petitioner had already submitted reply to show cause notice.

  • GST Notification Struck Down: Court Cites Lack of Council Recommendation, Parallel State Notification.

    The High Court examined the validity of Notification No. 56/2023-CT dated 28.12.2023, which extended the time limit for passing orders u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act). The key issues were the absence of a recommendation from the GST Council and the absence of a corresponding state government notification parallel to the Central Government's notification. The Court held that exercising powers u/s 168A of the CGST Act to extend time limits requires a recommendation from the GST Council and the existence of force majeure circumstances, as defined in the Explanation to Section 168A. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in V.M. Kurian Vs. State of Kerala, the Court emphasized that the word "recommendation" implies a statement expressing commendation, and its meaning must be understood in the context of the relevant provisions and objects. The Court observed that the CGST Act and State GST Acts do not define "recommendation" but noted the constitutional provisions promoting fiscal and cooperative federalism. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Notification No. 56/2023-CT is ultra vires the CGST Act and legally unsustainable, setting it aside. The Orders-in-Original passed u/s 73(9) of the CGST Act and State GST Act beyond the prescribed time limit u/s 73(10.

  • Dissolution of partnership firm: Tax notice quashed, petitioner granted chance to prove tax payments.

    The Court quashed the show cause notice (SCN) issued to the petitioner in a tax matter due to the dissolution of a partnership firm. The petitioner expressed willingness to participate in proceedings before the tax department and demonstrate tax payments made concerning the firm. The Court set aside the impugned order and notices, granting liberty to the respondent authorities to proceed against the petitioner and other legal heirs of the partner in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of.

  • Quashed unlawful tax audit orders against firm under insolvency resolution.

    The court quashed orders related to audit and intimation liability issued against the petitioner company u/s 65 of the CGST Act for financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The orders were found to be without jurisdiction or legal authority, as a resolution plan for the company had already been approved by the NCLT, rendering such proceedings impermissible under applicable legal precedents. Consequently, the petition challenging the impugned orders and proceedings was allowed by the High Court.

  • Bank documents seizure challenged, court orders return for business operations. Attachment orders set aside pending liability determination.

    Challenge to provisional attachment order concerning bank account - pre-show cause notice issued - court held documents seized should be returned as petitioner is in real estate business and requires documents for operations - order of seizure not interfered with but respondents directed to return seized documents - regarding provisional bank attachment orders, in light of petitioner's contention of partial discharge of liability and interim stay by court, attachment orders set aside with liberty to respondents to proceed further after decision on show cause notice - petition partly allowed.

  • Acetylene gas supply not covered u/r 55, requires tax invoice - High Court directs authorities to revisit penalties.

    The High Court held that Rule 55 of the CGST Rules, 2017 applies only to the four circumstances mentioned in Rule 55 (a) to (d), and the supply of Acetylene Gas is not covered by Rule 55 (a). Therefore, the goods should have been covered by a tax invoice. The competent authorities were directed to consider the case u/s 122 of the CGST/SGST Acts and impose appropriate penalties. Any amount recovered from the petitioner due to the previous order shall be refunded or adjusted against future tax liabilities by crediting the electronic cash register. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

  • Firm's auditor wrongly served GST notice due to absent GST authorization; order passed denying personal hearing.

    Petitioner failed to authorize representative for GST matters after registration under GST regime, resulting in show cause notice being served on auditor without petitioner's knowledge. Petitioner unable to respond or attend hearing due to lack of notice. Order passed without granting opportunity of personal hearing, violating natural justice principles. High Court set aside original order, remanded matter for fresh consideration by department, subject to petitioner paying 7.5% of disputed tax within four weeks. Petition allowed by way of remand due to department's fault in denying petitioner opportunity to respond.

  • A government-owned company loses GST exemption on legal services due to insufficient equity stake.

    The key points are: The applicant (THDCIL) does not qualify as a "Government Entity" under GST laws as it fails to meet the criteria of having 90% or more equity or control by the government. Although initially established with 100% government equity, currently the government's stake is only 25.504% due to equity dilution. Consequently, THDCIL cannot avail the GST exemption on legal services received under the reverse charge mechanism, which is available only to "Government Entities" as per the relevant GST notifications. The Advance Ruling Authority has ruled that THDCIL does not satisfy the definition of a "Government Entity" for GST purposes due to insufficient government equity participation.

  • Income Tax

  • University's tax exemption denied for non-compliance: Unaudited accounts, lack of info/evidence on expenses & donations.

    The assessee university's application for registration u/s 10(23C)(vi) was rejected due to non-submission of audited accounts and failure to provide necessary information or explanations regarding various queries raised by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions). The key points are: the assessee argued that audited accounts were not required for the first three years as per the applicable statute, but failed to substantiate this claim. The audit clause did not mention any exemption for the first three years. The assessee's contention regarding non-audit due to non-inclusion in the audit list was found untenable as accounts for the subsequent year were audited before the notification date. Regarding vehicle expenses, no plausible explanation or supporting evidence was provided. For examination expenses, the assessee claimed confidentiality but failed to provide relevant information or evidence. Donations received for honouring gold medalists lacked corroborative evidence. Following the Supreme Court's decision in New Noble Education Society, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's rejection order due to the assessee's failure to furnish necessary information and supporting documents.

  • Firm denied tax deduction on compensation paid for properties it had no rights over.

    The High Court held that the assessee firm was not entitled to claim deduction u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act for the compensation paid. The key points are: The properties involved in the agreement did not belong to the assessee firm during the relevant assessment year. The assessee did not have any right, title or interest in those properties. The assessee was not a party to the agreements related to those properties. The Tribunal's reasoning that the assessee had acquired interest or rights in the properties by virtue of registration or identification was erroneous. The assessee failed to substantiate that the liability for compensation was crystallized or provided for during the relevant year. The Tribunal erred in allowing the assessee's claim by setting aside the concurrent findings of the lower authorities.

  • Deductions under 10B disallowed, Section 153C procedure non-compliance examined by High Court.

    The High Court addressed two issues: disallowance of deduction u/s 10B and non-compliance with Section 153C procedure. Regarding Section 10B, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision based on its previous judgment in Tata Elxsi Ltd. As for Section 153C, the Court reiterated that when search material is relied upon, the Assessing Officer must follow the procedure u/ss 153A, 153B, and 153C, and cannot continue with regular assessment. The Court relied on its decision in Dinakar Suvarna and ruled in favor of the assessee on both issues.

  • CBDT must refund delayed tax amount with interest; IT portal glitches can't deny statutory benefits.

    The High Court held that after the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order, the tax authorities are bound to refund the amount to the petitioner with interest, without requiring any formalities to be completed. The non-functionality of the TRACES Portal cannot be grounds for denying the statutory benefit under the Income Tax Act. Section 243 provides for payment of interest on delayed refunds, while Section 241A about withholding refunds is not applicable in this case. Section 245 allows setting off refunds against outstanding tax payable after giving written intimation. The TRACES Portal's limitations cannot override the assessee's rights under the Income Tax Act. The authorities must complete the refund exercise within 30 days.

  • Income Tax assessment; unexplained receipts added to income u/s 69A; writ dismissed due to availability of statutory appeal remedy.

    The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed against the order of assessment passed u/s 153A, making additions u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. The Court held that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal u/s 246A is not a bar to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, subject to certain limitations. However, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptional situation warranting interference under Article 226. The Court found that the Assessing Officer's action of bringing unexplained receipts to tax cannot be construed as without jurisdiction or violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner did not substantiate the claims of fraud by ex-employees and failed to provide information sought regarding unsecured hand loans. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority u/s 246A.

  • Unsecured loans verification inadequate, Addition partially upheld.

    The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding the revision u/s 263 concerning unsecured loans received. The Principal Commissioner found that the Assessing Officer did not properly verify the unsecured loans, and the assessee failed to provide relevant documents for verification. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's addition of 10% of the unsecured loan lacked basis and application of mind u/s 68. However, the revisional order pertained to the remaining unverified unsecured loan creditors, where the Assessing Officer erred by not conducting proper verification, prejudicing revenue interests. Mere document submission did not satisfy Section 263 requirements. The assessee's reliance on a distinguishable case was rejected, as the issue of verification remained unaddressed by the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment.

  • Income Tax - Limited Scrutiny Jurisdiction Exceeded, Unfair Addition of Capital Gains.

    The case pertains to the scope of limited scrutiny by the assessing officer regarding computation of capital gains u/s 45 and providing exemption u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act. The key points are: The assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the deduction claimed u/s 54B. However, the assessing officer exceeded jurisdiction by disallowing the fair market value claimed u/s 45 for computing capital gains, which was beyond the limited scrutiny scope. This violated CBDT instructions limiting the scrutiny scope. The assessment order u/s 143(3) became invalid as the officer traveled beyond the assigned jurisdiction of limited scrutiny. To examine aspects beyond limited scrutiny like cost of acquisition u/s 45, the assessing officer should have taken permission from higher authorities, which was not done. The limited scrutiny scope is narrow as per CBDT instructions, restricting inquiry to specified issues. Linking provisions of Section 54B with Section 48 for enhancing capital gains u/s 45 is impermissible without requisite permissions. Revenue authorities cannot travel beyond limited scrutiny issues without completing formalities for extending scrutiny scope. The assessing officer's addition on issues outside limited scrutiny reasons is invalid. The assessee's appeal is allowed as the officer exceeded jurisdiction.

  • Milk agent escapes penalty for not auditing books due to small-scale operations.

    Penalty proceedings u/s 271B for failure to get accounts audited. The assessee's main income was commission earned from sales of milk, acting as an agent for the mother dairy. The gross sales reported were not the actual sales but those of the mother dairy. As a small-time agent, the assessee purchased milk in bulk and sold it daily, remitting the amount to the mother dairy and retaining the commission income. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee did not maintain books of account. Considering the nature of the assessee's activities, it was not possible to maintain books, and the requirement for audit depended on the gross commission income, not sales. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee and held that there was no reason to levy penalty u/s 271B.

  • Multiple officers assumed jurisdiction without valid transfer, leading to jurisdictional defect.

    The jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO) had suo moto transferred the assessment to Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 2(2) Noida. The appellant contended that the statutory notice u/s 143(2) was issued by ITO, Ward-40(1), Delhi and another such notice was issued by ITO, Ward-2(2), Noida despite the assessment proceedings for the relevant Assessment Year being pending with ITO, Ward-70(2), Delhi. The Tribunal held that even though the assessee had mentioned the Noida address in the Income Tax Return and requested the transfer to Delhi, the assessment is not vitiated. However, the Revenue failed to justify and establish the validity of issuance of the notice u/s 143(1) by ITO, Ward 40(1) on 20.09.2016. The Tribunal found no justification for how the Noida Office transferred the case to Ward 40(1), Delhi, which ultimately reached Ward 8(2), Delhi, from where the final assessment order was passed. The Tribunal held that it is not a case of concurrent jurisdiction, but rather a whimsical exercise of jurisdiction by the AOs in transferring the assessment. The assessee's objections to the assumption of jurisdiction were rightly raised and considered by the assessing officers. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee.

  • Tribunal addressed comparability, interest on receivables, and loss set-off in transfer pricing case.

    The Tribunal addressed various issues related to transfer pricing adjustments, including the selection of comparables, interest on trade receivables, and set-off of losses. Regarding comparables, the Tribunal upheld the inclusion of E-Infochips Bangalore Ltd. and Mindtree, rejecting the assessee's objections. However, it excluded Persistent Systems Ltd. due to the absence of inventory related to software products. Concerning interest on trade receivables, the Tribunal followed the DRP's decision to restrict interest to LIBOR plus 250 basis points, despite contrary Tribunal precedents, as the Revenue did not appeal the DRP's order. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding set-off of losses between units, citing the lack of objection before the DRP and the restriction u/s 92C(4) proviso. The order provides clarity on the Tribunal's approach to various transfer pricing issues.

  • Customs

  • Lab chemicals up to 500g for own use under customs heading 9802, not for trading/resale.

    Classification criteria for laboratory chemicals under customs heading 9802: Imported solely for own use, not trading or resale, in packings up to 500g/500ml, identifiable as laboratory chemicals by purity, markings or features. Chemicals exceeding 500g/500ml packings or imported for trading/resale classified under respective headings. Objective criteria established for consistent classification across customs formations.

  • Customs broker's clearance without physical verification of exporters upheld.

    The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's order, upholding the Tribunal's view that the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR) 2013 do not mandate physical verification of exporters, their premises, or antecedents. The allegation was that the respondent customs broker initiated clearance without meeting the exporter's authorized person and received work through intermediaries. However, the Tribunal found this permissible under the CBLR. The Court noted that the Department did not investigate how the seal was affixed or officials' involvement. Additionally, parallel proceedings against the respondent's partner concluded favorably, with no prosecution recommended and no adverse findings by the DRI. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's plausible interpretation of the regulations, dismissing the revenue's appeal.

  • Carnet misuse through repair misdeclaration - duties paid, no concealment, notification benefit denied.

    Carnet violation through non-filing of Bill of Entry - misdeclaration and misuse alleged. Notification 94/1996 applicable. Misdeclaration accepted for repair purpose, duty on repairs confirmed. No physical concealment, duties paid at import, denial of Notification benefit unjust. Redemption fine and Section 112(a) penalty set aside. Additional ground on duty determination raised for first time, being legal issue, remanded. Order modified to extent of allowing redemption fine and penalty, remanded for deciding additional ground on basic duty liability. Appeal disposed.

  • Imported Polyester Bed Sheets Classified as 'Quilt Cover' - A CESTAT Ruling.

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled on the classification of imported bed sheets declared as made of 100% polyester. The key points are: The goods were classified as 'Polyester Quilt Cover' by the Tribunal, considering the factual details, size, and common parlance usage. Based on the decided case laws and the nature of the goods, the Tribunal held that the bed sheets are classifiable under CTH 6304 (other furnishing articles) and not under CTH 5407 (woven fabrics of synthetic filament yarn). The order of the lower authority classifying the goods under CTH 6304 was upheld, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

  • Customs rejects importer's declared value, enhances it based on email evidence & partner's higher negotiated price admission.

    Customs authority rejected transaction value declared by importer and enhanced value based on email evidence and statement of partner admitting negotiated higher price. Email evidence deemed admissible despite lack of certificate u/s 138C of Customs Act. Tribunal upheld enhancement of value but reduced redemption fine and penalty imposed on importer for misdeclaration of value. Tribunal's order partially allowed importer's appeal by reducing financial liabilities while upholding substantive findings on undervaluation.

  • DGFT

  • IT hardware import controls extended till 2024-end, new rules from 2025.

    Import of certain IT hardware is restricted. Importers can apply for import authorizations valid until 31.12.2024. Existing authorizations issued until 30.09.2024 remain valid until 31.12.2024. Fresh authorizations required from 01.01.2025 onwards, subject to forthcoming guidance. Other provisions of Policy Circular No. 6/2023-24 dated 19.10.2023 remain applicable. Issued with competent authority's approval.

  • Corporate Law

  • Producer Companies get 5-year transition to comply with securities allotment rules.

    This notification amends the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014, by inserting a proviso in sub-rule (2) of rule 9B. The proviso states that a producer company covered under this sub-rule shall, within five years of the closure of such financial year, comply with the provision of this sub-rule. The amendment aims to provide a transitional period of five years for producer companies to comply with the requirements under sub-rule (2) of rule 9B.

  • IBC

  • Bankrupt firm's rejected resolution plan not entertained, court directs NCLT intervention.

    Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking initiation of fresh voting on petitioner's Resolution Plan after considering principles of equality and fairness dismissed. Court held petitioner has efficacious remedy to assail CoC's action before NCLT as Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction to regulate CoC's conduct, adjudicate upon resolution plan through judicial review, ensuring CoC functions per IBC. NCLT maintains supervisory role over CIRP proceedings u/s 60 of IBC. Court cannot usurp NCLT's powers to inquire into CoC's commercial wisdom rejecting petitioner's plan. Petitioner's offer to match successful bidder's offer cannot be entertained by Court. NCLT may allow open court bidding if deemed fit while considering CoC's decision. Petitioner granted liberty to approach NCLT to decide objections on merits per law.

  • PMLA

  • Provisional attachment under PMLA upheld due to lack of evidence of legitimate income sources.

    Appellants challenged the provisional attachment of their immovable and movable properties under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), alleging lack of evidence that the properties were acquired from proceeds of crime. The court held that the appellants failed to provide reliable proof of their claimed sources of income like agriculture, rent, and contracts to explain the actual purchase consideration. Income tax returns filed belatedly after investigations were insufficient. Under PMLA, the burden lies on the noticee to show the sources of income/assets. The presumptions u/ss 23 and 24 operate against the appellants. The court rejected the contention that the definition of "proceeds of crime" was not considered, as the pre-amendment definition covered any property derived directly/indirectly from criminal activity related to scheduled offences. The attached property's value was rightly determined as Rs. 60,00,000/-, not Rs. 4,37,500/-. Finding no reason to interfere, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

  • SEBI

  • Investors apply for public debt issues up to Rs. 5L via UPI from Nov'24.

    Individual investors applying through intermediaries for public issues of debt securities, non-convertible redeemable preference shares, municipal debt securities, and securitized debt instruments up to Rs. 5 lakh must use UPI for fund blocking and provide UPI ID in the application form. Other application modes like SCSBs and stock exchange platforms remain available. The circular is applicable to public issues opening on or after November 1, 2024, issued under relevant regulations to protect investors and regulate securities market.

  • Objective Evaluation Criteria for Stock Exchanges & Market Infra Institutions.

    This circular outlines the parameters and framework for independent external evaluation of performance of Market Infrastructure Institutions (MIIs) like stock exchanges, clearing corporations, and depositories. The key aspects are: minimum criteria with weightages for evaluation across areas like technology resilience, investor education, regulatory compliance, governance, and fair access; a rating framework for consistent assessment; principles for appointment of independent external agency; timelines requiring first evaluation for FY 2024-25 and subsequent three-yearly evaluations; and guidelines for performance evaluation of Managing Director and Key Management Personnel linking to regulatory and compliance outcomes. MIIs must implement necessary systems, amend bye-laws, and disseminate the circular. The measures aim to enhance MII performance, governance, and regulatory compliance for investor protection and market development.

  • VAT

  • Tax appeal to be heard sans security deposit for poor litigants; Tribunal can't waive pre-deposit.

    Constitutional validity of Section 33(5) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, regarding the waiver of the condition of pre-deposit of surety bond or bank guarantee, was examined. While the appellate authority lacks the power to waive the condition, the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can direct the appeal to be heard without insisting on the precondition. The requirement of an irrevocable bank guarantee or surety bond is an onerous condition. The petitioners would be unable to submit security in the form of a surety bond as they lack property worth the said amount. A person cannot be left remediless. The Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad, is directed to hear the appeals without insisting on the precondition u/s 33(5) and decide on merits. The appellate authority cannot waive the pre-deposit required u/s 33(5). The Haryana Tax Tribunal's order upholding the refusal to entertain the appeal without surety bonds or pre-deposit is not illegal.

  • Central Excise

  • Cash seized - Can't be used for appeal deposits; Excess interest on seized cash FDs to be refunded.

    Cash seized during investigation cannot be appropriated towards pre-deposits u/s 35FF of Central Excise Act or Section 129EE of Customs Act as a condition for filing appeals. Respondents erroneously granted interest at 6% per annum on refund of seized cash deposited in fixed deposits earning higher interest. Petitioner's claim for 18% interest rejected, but entitled to excess interest earned on fixed deposits over 6%. Respondents, as trustees, obligated to account for entire interest earned and cannot enrich themselves. Impugned order quashed, petitioner awarded excess interest of Rs. 90,07,829/- over 6% on fixed deposits from seized cash. Respondents to initiate inquiry, fix responsibility for negligence in non-renewal of fixed deposits.


Case Laws:

  • GST

  • 2024 (9) TMI 1402
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1401
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1400
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1399
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1398
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1397
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1396
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1395
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1394
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1393
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1392
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1391
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1390
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1389
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1388
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1387
  • Income Tax

  • 2024 (9) TMI 1386
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1385
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1384
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1383
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1382
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1381
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1380
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1379
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1378
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1377
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1376
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1375
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1374
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1373
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1372
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1371
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1370
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1369
  • Customs

  • 2024 (9) TMI 1368
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1367
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1366
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1365
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1364
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1363
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy

  • 2024 (9) TMI 1362
  • PMLA

  • 2024 (9) TMI 1361
  • Service Tax

  • 2024 (9) TMI 1360
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1359
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1358
  • Central Excise

  • 2024 (9) TMI 1357
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1356
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1355
  • 2024 (9) TMI 1354
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax

  • 2024 (9) TMI 1353
  • Indian Laws

  • 2024 (9) TMI 1352
 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates