Expert Knowledge,
Straight from Practitioners.
Tax tips, legal guides, and financial advice written by the same verified CAs, Advocates, and Advisors you can consult on ConsultEase.
Section 22 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860
Section 22 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860 on text: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of mental illness, is incapable of knowing the nature
Two factor authentication in E way bill where AATO is 20 Cr or more
The GST E-Way Bill System has issued an important update dated November 6, 2023. Starting from November 20, 2023, taxpayers with an Annual Aggregate Turnover (AATO) of Rs 20 Crore and above are required to implement Two-Factor Authentication (2FA). To ensure smooth management of E-Way
Rectification of GSTR 1 allowed by the court after time barred
The public_profile can be reached at shaifaly.ca@gmail.com Cases Covered: Varshan Enterprises Vs Office of the GST Council Citation Mafatlal Industries Limited v. Union of India Pentacle Plant Machineries Private Limited v. Office of the GST Council, New Delhi and others Commissioner of CGST & Central
Section 21 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860
Section 21 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860 on TexT: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge
Section 23 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860
Section 23 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860 on text: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of
The ITC was allowed even if the by-product is not taxable. It was a judgment of VAT but is applicable on GST also.
The public_profile can be reached at shaifaly.ca@gmail.com Cases Covered: M/S MODI NATURALS LTD Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL Citation State of Karnataka v. M.K. Agro Tech Private Limited,. Partington v. Attorney General Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Spg. & Ginning Mills Federation Ltd. v. CIT State Bank
Fuel provided free of cost by recipient will be included in the value
The public_profile can be reached at shaifaly.ca@gmail.com Cases Covered: M/s Shree Jeet Transport Vs UNION OF INDIA Citations: State of Karnataka v. M.K. Agro Tech Private Limited,. Partington v. Attorney General Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Spg. & Ginning Mills Federation Ltd. v. CIT State Bank of
Cash cant be seized in GST as it is not “Goods”
The public_profile can be reached at shaifaly.ca@gmail.com Cases Covered: BHARATKUMAR PRAVINKUMAR AND CO Vs STATE OF GUJARAT Citation Smt.Kanishka Matta Vs. Union of India and others Shabu George Vs. State Tax Officer Arvind Goyal CA Vs Union of India and others Facts of the cases:
Section 16 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860
Section 16 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860 on Text: Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the judgment or order of, a Court; if done whilst such judgment or order remains in
23 questions on form 10B by Income Tax Department
Question 1: From which Assessment Year re-notified Form 10B is applicable? Resolution: Form 10B notified vide Notification No. 7/2023 dated 21st February 2023 is applicable from Assessment Year 2023-24 onwards i.e. for A.Y. 2023-24 and upcoming years. Question 2: Form 10B which was being filed
7 Things before making a reply to GST notice
The public_profile can be reached at shaifaly.ca@gmail.com Jurisdiction- The notice should be from the proper jurisdictional officer. You are not required to make a reply to a notice sent without a jurisdiction. Is time-barred? – In case notice is time-barred you are not required to
GST Amnesty scheme for time barred appeals
Who Qualifies for Amnesty Benefits? a. Individuals subject to taxation who were unable to file an appeal against an adjudication order issued on or before March 31, 2023, and where such an appeal wasn’t filed within the permissible time limit (3 months [standard time limit]



