Henna Medicals v. State Tax Officer
Kerala High Court INTRODUCTION The petitioner, Henna Medicals, challenged: Assessment Order dated 28.12.2021, and Recovery Notice dated 02.09.2023. The assessment denied Input Tax Credit of ₹2,58,116, along with interest and penalty, resulting in a total demand of approximately ₹4,58,156. The High Court noted from the assessment order that the sole ground for denying ITC was […]
Henna Medicals v. State Tax Officer
Kerala High Court INTRODUCTION The petitioner, Henna Medicals, challenged: Assessment Order dated 28.12.2021, and Recovery Notice dated 02.09.2023. The Department denied ITC amounting to ₹2,58,116, along with interest and penalty, aggregating to approximately ₹4,58,156. From the assessment order, the High Court found that the only basis for denial of ITC was the difference between GSTR-2A […]
State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited
Supreme Court of India INTRODUCTION The dispute arose under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The purchasing dealer claimed Input Tax Credit on purchases allegedly made from registered dealers. The tax authorities questioned the genuineness of those purchases and denied ITC. The dispute ultimately reached the Supreme Court. Legal Issues The Supreme Court considered: […]
Suncraft Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
Calcutta High Court INTRODUCTION Suncraft Energy Pvt. Ltd. claimed Input Tax Credit in its GSTR-3B return for the financial year 2017-18. The Assistant Commissioner noticed that certain invoices claimed in GSTR-3B were not reflected in GSTR-2A. Based on this mismatch: notices were issued; ITC was reversed; and recovery proceedings were initiated. The assessee challenged the […]
Diya Agencies v. State Tax Officer
Kerala High Court INTRODUCTION The petitioner, Diya Agencies, claimed Input Tax Credit under Section 16 of the CGST Act. The tax authorities denied the ITC primarily because the corresponding invoices were not reflected in GSTR-2A. The petitioner challenged the denial before the Kerala High Court, contending that non-reflection in GSTR-2A alone cannot deprive a genuine […]
Sarabhai M. Chemicals v. Commissioner of Central Excise
CEGAT INTRODUCTION The appellant manufactured Chlormequat Chloride (Cycocel). Before 1 March 1986: the product was classified under Tariff Item 68; exemption was claimed under Notification No. 234/82. After introduction of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985: the appellant classified the product under Heading 3808.10 as a pesticide. The Department later alleged that: Cycocel was actually […]
Cosmic Dye Chemical v. Collector of Central Excis
Supreme Court of India INTRODUCTION The appellant, Cosmic Dye Chemical, manufactured two products: Rapidogens, which were fully exempt from excise duty under Notification No. 180/61. Naphthol ASG, which was dutiable. The assessee claimed the benefit of the Small Scale Industry exemption under Notification No. 71/78 for Naphthol ASG by declaring that the aggregate value of […]
Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. L.M.P. Precision Engineering Co.
Supreme Court of India INTRODUCTION The respondent manufactured water well drilling rigs mounted on motor vehicle chassis. For the period 1 March 1986 to 29 February 1988, the respondent classified the goods under Tariff Heading 84.30. On 1 March 1988, the Central Government issued an exemption notification granting benefit to drilling rigs falling under Heading […]
Densons Pultretaknik v. Commissioner of Central Excise
Supreme Court of India INTRODUCTION The appellant manufactured: Epoxy Cast Components such as crotch belly, bushings, etc.; and insulating fittings for electrical machines and equipment. In the classification list filed in 1987, the appellant classified: Epoxy Cast Components under Sub-heading 3926.90 as articles of plastics. Insulating fittings under Sub-heading 8547.00. While scrutinising the classification list, […]
Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise
CESTAT, Mumbai INTRODUCTION M/s. Aurangabad Electricals Ltd. (AEL) undertook job work for M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. The job worker manufactured: Magneto Assemblies Transmission Shafts using raw materials supplied by Bajaj Auto. The Department alleged that while computing assessable value, the job worker failed to include various elements supplied by Bajaj Auto, including: lower priced raw […]