Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Challenge to Tax Rate Notifications Settled in Favor of Petitioners</h1> <h3>M/s. KTV Health Food Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, represented by its Secretary, New Delhi; Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, New Delhi; The Principal Chief Commissioner of GST, Chennai</h3> M/s. KTV Health Food Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, represented by its Secretary, New Delhi; Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, New Delhi; The ... Issues:Challenge to Notification No.8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) and Notification No.10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate).Analysis:The petitioners challenged Sl.No.9 (ii) of Notification No.8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) and Sl.No.10 of Notification No.10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate). Notification No.8/2017 specifies the rate of tax payable for services, particularly regarding the transport of goods in a vessel from a place outside India up to the customs station of clearance in India. The relevant portion of the notification outlines the conditions and rates for such services. On the other hand, Notification No.10/2017 imposes the liability to pay tax on a reverse charge basis by the recipient for specific categories of services, including services supplied by a person located in a non-taxable territory by way of transporting goods by a vessel from a place outside India up to the customs station of clearance in India.The issue was confirmed to be settled in favor of the petitioners by referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. The Supreme Court's decision clarified that the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act define reverse charge and specify the entity to be taxed for these purposes. The notification merely serves a clarificatory purpose and does not introduce a different taxable person from the one prescribed in the relevant sections of the Acts. As a result, the Writ Petitions were allowed, with no costs imposed, and the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.