Judgements by Bimal Jain

In a landmark judgment in the case of Mohit Mineral Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI [Special Civil Application No. 726/2018 decided on January 23, 2020], the Hon'ble Gujarat HC has declared levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax ('IGST') on ocean freight & corre

The Hon'ble AAR, Goa in the matter of M/s Goa Industrial Development Corporation [AAR No. GOA/GAAR/01 of 2019-20/1875 dated October 17, 2019] has held that the compensation paid by the Applicant on lessor's deposit would clearly qualify as 'supply of

The Hon'ble Madras HC in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1699 of 2017 dated January 6th, 2020, allowed the Revenue's appeal to hold that to avail the exemption of duty under any Notification, the Rules and Regulations and the conditions prescribed the

The Hon’ble HC, Jharkhand in the matter of Godavari Commodities Ltd. v. The Union of India [W.P.(T) No.1786 of 2019 decided on December 3, 2019] has held that the intimation letter for payment of interest is to be treated as a show cause notice and d

The Hon'ble HC, Gujarat in the matter of M/s Choksi Texlen Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [R/Special Civil Application No. 8096 of 2019 dated October 18, 2019] instructs Revenue authorities to withdraw the charge and attachment made on the Petitioner'

It is imperative that such provisions must be restored in the GST Law so as not to sow the seeds of any fresh ground for litigation in GST regime, which is being envisaged as an epic reform of indirect taxation post-independence.

Whether handling portion and maintenance including incineration facilities by one party on behalf of another is in the nature of providing 'Storage and Warehousing Services' falling under Section 65(105)(zza) of the Finance Act, 1994 (“the Finance Ac

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Chennai held as under: - The Adjudicating Authority had rightly computed the interest amount from the due date till the date of payment in respect of demand for the month of January, 2011, by working out interest at 13% up to M

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Bangalore held that although there is no specific 'relevant date' under Section 11B of the Excise Act to claimrefund of unutilized credit, but, that would not rule out applicability of Section 11B. Relevant date should be the date

Hon’ble Apex Court held that it cannot be the intention of the Legislature to provide rebate only on one item i.e. either on inputs or final products. It was further held that giving such restrictive meaning to Rule 18 of the Excise Rules would not o