Judgements by Bimal Jain

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

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai held that reimbursement of the cost of obtaining and employing resources/certain expenses incurred by the Appellant on the behalf of the Group Companies cannot be regarded as consideration flowing to the Appellant towards t

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held as under: The ‘Governmental authority’ as defined in the Notification dated January 30, 2014, means an authority or a board or any other body set up by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature; The provisio

The transaction in question qualified as a transfer of right to use goods and, consequently, be outside definition of ‘service’ under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act and no Service tax could be levied on such transaction.

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai heard both sides and observed the contention submitted by the Appellant that unless the commercial complex is constructed and completed in all respects, the same could not be rented out by the Appellant is a common sense.