Tax
Ports Governed By Major Port Trusts Act Liable To Pay Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods Under Customs Act : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 25) upheld the Commissioner of Customs order of classifying the Mumbai Port Trust as a 'custodian' under the Customs Act for the purpose of paying duty on 'pilfered goods' i.e., loss or damage to stock in a warehouse or to cargo in transit. The Court said that regardless of the fact that the Mumbai Port trust is governed by the Major Port Trusts Act,...
S. 74 CGST Act | General Allegations Of Fraud/Suppression Won't Extend Limitation; SCN Must Specify Foundational Facts : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 25) quashed the GST show-cause notice issued to Tata Steel Ltd. under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for alleged short payment of tax due to suppression of facts. A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran called the department's invocation of Section 74 of the Act, rather than the ordinary mechanism...
AI-Generated Case Laws In Tax Order: Gujarat High Court Directs Strict Verification And Human Oversight, Warns Of Contempt
The Gujarat High Court quashed a GST cancellation order as well as appellate proceedings against an entity after noting that the State Tax Officer had passed the order relying exclusively on AI-generated case laws, including non-existent and irrelevant authorities. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 228]A division bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D Nanavati had in its earlier ordered said...
To Invoke Extended Limitation Under S.74, GST Show Cause Notice Must Specify Aspects Of Fraud Or Concealment : Supreme Court
Mechanically using the words 'fraud' or 'concealment' will not suffice.
Only 29 Of 92 Posts Filled: Allahabad High Court Flags 'Disturbing' Vacancies In UP GST Appellate Tribunal
While flagging a “disturbing state of affairs” over substantial vacancies in the GST Appellate Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court has noted that only 29 of the 92 sanctioned posts have been filled, leaving 63 posts vacant.Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that mere issuance of circulars or advertisements cannot amount to compliance with the obligation to make the...
Referral Charges Received By Auto Dealers For Bank & Insurance Promotion Subject To Service Tax : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 19) held that the referral charges received by automobile dealers from banks and insurance companies for facilitating vehicle loans and insurance policies are taxable as “Business Auxiliary Service” under the Finance Act, 1994. “The assessee is promoting the business of the banks and the insurance company for which they receive an amount as...
Income Tax Act | 18-Month Period To Decide Settlement Application Under S.245D(4A) Is Mandatory, Not Directory: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has held that the period of 18 months prescribed under Section 245D(4A)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for disposal of a settlement application is mandatory and not directory in nature. It quashed an order of the Interim Board for Settlement passed after that period had expired.Section 245D(4A)(iii) of the Income Tax Act requires an order under...
S.69 GST Order Containing 'Reasons To Believe' Must Be Communicated Before Arrest : Supreme Court
The Court clarified that the arrest reasons under S.69 GST can be communicated electronically as well.
Can States Impose Additional Levy On Sales Tax? Supreme Court 7-Judge Bench To Hear On September 22
The Supreme Court will, from September 22, hear a long-pending dispute concerning the constitutional power of State legislatures to impose an additional levy on sales tax, with a seven-judge Constitution Bench set to examine the scope of the States' taxing powers under the Seventh Schedule.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana...
GST | Exporters Whose Applications Were Pending Before Omission Of Rule 96(10) Entitled To IGST Refund : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has given a quietus to the controversy surrounding exporters' eligibility to claim Integrated Tax (IGST) refunds, with their applications pending when the rule restricting such claims was omitted in 2024 without any saving clause. Providing relief to exporters, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that exporters whose applications were pending...
Retrospective Tax Liability Valid, But Not Retrospective Penalty : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that while a tax liability can validly be imposed retrospectively through legislative amendment, penalty cannot be imposed retrospectively on a dealer who had complied with the law as it stood when the transaction took place.A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale made the distinction while upholding the constitutional validity of a...
Central Excise | 'Mere Grouping And Unpacking Does Not Attract Excise Duty', Supreme Court Dismisses Revenue's ₹17.86 Crore Demand Against Xerox
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 5) held that a mere grouping and fitting together of imported photocopier modules for dispatch to customers does not amount to “manufacture” under the Central Excise Act, 1944, to attract an excise duty. A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the Customs Excise & Service Tax...