Search Results for "Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act"

348 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 348 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Review and Writ Petitions in GST Input Tax Credit Refund Case for Duty Free Shops. Sale of duty free goods at airport departure area is not export, hence no refund of ITC under Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017.

The judgment concerns three matters: a criminal application seeking review of dismissal of a PIL, and two writ petitions challenging an adjudication o...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petitions Challenging Levy of Entry Tax on Natural Gas Under Maharashtra Entry Tax Act, 2002 — Holds That Natural Gas Is Not 'Goods' for Entry Tax Purposes When Supplied Through Pipelines

The judgment concerns four writ petitions filed by companies (Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., Smartchem Technologies Ltd., Emp...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Tax on Hire Purchase Components Under Bombay Sales Tax Act — Option Money, Insurance, and Hire Premium Included in Sale Price. Hire Purchase Transaction Constitutes a Sale and Resale Deduction Under Section 8 Not Available.

The case involves two sales tax references under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, arising from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal. The applicant, M/s. ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Sales Tax Assessment Orders Due to Availability of Alternative Remedy. Petitioners Failed to Show Exceptional Circumstances to Bypass Statutory Remedy of Reference Under Section 61(1) of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.

The petitioners, Tata Sons Limited and another, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court chal...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Time Limit for Availing Input Tax Credit Under Section 16(4) of CGST Act. The court held that the time limit is mandatory and not directory, and retrospective amendments are valid.

The Bombay High Court, in a batch of writ petitions, addressed the constitutional validity and interpretation of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods an...