The petitioner was selling areca nuts from Karnataka to customers based in Delhi. The conveyance was intercepted, and proceedings under section 129 were initiated on the basis that there was no E-way Bill. However, the confiscation order came to be passed under section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017, on the ground that the goods…

The petitioner is a works contractor. Refund claims were filed. Refund orders were passed against the petitioner. Appeals were filed before appellate authority. The appellate authority allowed the appeals (partly in some cases). However, form APL-04 was either not uploaded online or the incorrect form was uploaded. Due to which, the original authority did not…

The appellant is a dealer. It purchases heavy vehicles from Tata Motors and cars from Hyundai Motors. The said vehicles are sold to customers. A demand of service tax of over Rs.33 crores was raised on the appellant on the ground:The discount/incentive offered by the manufacturer by way of various schemes is consideration for providing…

The appellant constructed a mall. It availed credit of tax paid on input services. The Commissioner disallowed such input credit on the ground that it is not "input service" as defined under Rule 2 of CENVAT Credit Rules. The appellant deposited the amount "under protest." The appeal filed against this order is allowed by the…

The respondent assessee undertook a works contract for the supply, erection, installation, and commissioning of the project. The supply included manufactured as well as bought-out items. The revenue bifurcated the contract and demanded service tax on technical assistance rendered during the said project under “consulting engineer” service. A demand of about Rs. 2 crores was…

The petitioner is a stockbroker. It is registered with the service tax department. It received a notice for an audit to be conducted by CERA. Such notice was challenged before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court on the ground, inter alia, that there is no jurisdiction to conduct an audit in terms of Rule 5A of…