Tax
Mere Delay In Uploading Demand Order On GST Portal Doesn't Make Action Time Barred If Service Via Email Is Proved: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court recently observed that usually there is a gap between the passing of a demand order by the GST Department and uploading of Form DRC-07 (summary of order) on the official portal.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain however refused to infer such a gap as rendering the demand order time-barred, in view of the fact that the demand was served upon...
[GST] Reverse Charge Mechanism Notifications Denying ITC To Service Providers Are Constitutionally Valid: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court held that RCM notifications denying ITC credit to service providers are constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The bench opined that in case of RCM, the person receiving the services, i.e. the recipient pays the tax and can claim credit of the same. The provider of service is exempt from paying tax. Merely...
Income Tax Act | Rebate U/S 87A Available On Short-Term Capital Gains U/S 111A Under New Regime: ITAT
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that rebate under section 87A available on short-term capital gains under section 111A under new regime. Suchitra R. Kamble (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) stated that on a plain reading of the statutory provisions, there exists no express bar either in section 87A or section 111A...
Income Tax | Sale Proceeds Of Vintage Cars Taxable Unless Assessee Proves That Car Was Used As Personal Asset: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court held that sale proceeds of vintage car taxable unless the assessee proves that the car was used as a personal asset. Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne stated that the capability of a car for personal use would not ipso facto lead to automatic presumption that every car would be personal effects for being excluded from capital assets of...
Is Merchant Navy Officer's Salary Credited In Indian Bank Account Exempt From Income Tax? Supreme Court To Decide
The Supreme Court on Monday (Aug. 18) agreed to decide whether the income credited in an Indian bank account while working with a Foreign Entity would be exempted from the payment of Income Tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961.. The issue arose before the bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale while hearing the appeal filed against the Punjab & Haryana High Court's...
Widow Eligible To Claim TDS Credit On Deceased Husband's Income: ITAT
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that widow eligible to claim TDS credit on deceased husband's income. Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member) stated as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 37BA and sub-rule 3(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, if the income is assessable in the hands of any other person, the credit of TDS shall...
Bank Guarantee Which Expired Almost Ten Years Before CIRP Was Initiated, Cannot Be Enforced: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court stated that expired bank guarantee can't be enforced post CIRP (corporate insolvency resolution process). Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain stated that, “The argument that a personal guarantee survives the CIRP does not apply in the case because the guarantee had expired even before the CIRP. During the validity period of the guarantee, admittedly, no...
Tax Weekly Round-Up: August 11 - August 17, 2025
SUPREME COURTS.6(2)(b) CGST Act | Central Authority Can Issue Summons Despite State Authority Initiating Proceedings : Supreme CourtCause Title: M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE & ANR.In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday (Aug. 14) held that a summons issued by the Central GST authorities under Section 70 of the Goods...
Limitation To Claim GST Refund Begins From Date Of Correct Tax Payment: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court held that limitation for GST refund in wrong head ceases computed from correct payment date. Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Shailendra Singh after reading Section 77 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 19 of the IGST Act opined that the relevant date for counting the period of limitation would start from the date when the assessee had deposited the tax...
Export Incentives Can't Be Denied For Inadvertent Error In Shipping Bill: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court held that export incentives can't be denied for inadvertent error in shipping bill. The bench opined that …..there are situations where the assessee by inadvertence or even otherwise has uploaded certificate/forms or returns which contains some errors which would require correction. The said correction or amendment cannot be denied on the basis...
No Sales Tax On HDPE Bags Used To Pack Cement When Sold Separately: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court stated that no sales tax can be levied on HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene) bags at cement rate when sold separately. Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain were addressing the issue of whether there is an express and independent contract on the sale of HDPE bags in which cement is packed. “HDPE bags used to pack the cement were a distinct commodity with its...
[S.169 CGST Act] Service On Registered Email Is Sufficient For Calculating Limitation Period: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 service on registered email is sufficient service for the purpose of limitation. It held that holding that service was to be made by more than one modes would be absurd and defeat the purpose of the provision. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar...


![[GST] Reverse Charge Mechanism Notifications Denying ITC To Service Providers Are Constitutionally Valid: Bombay High Court [GST] Reverse Charge Mechanism Notifications Denying ITC To Service Providers Are Constitutionally Valid: Bombay High Court](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2025/06/12/500x300_604433-justices-ms-sonak-jitendra-jain-bombay-high-court.webp)





