Country of Origin Certificates and declared transaction value supported preferential customs exemption where authenticity and invoice prices remained ...
Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Movement of goods from Maharashtra to Buffer Depots and Satellite Depots in other States was treated as stock transfer, not an inter-State sale, because the Agreement and MOU did not create a binding prior contract fixing quantity, specification or determinative price at dispatch. The concluded sales arose only at depot level on receipt and acceptance of purchase orders, and the goods moved as mixed inventory replenishment under stock transfer documents. Form F declarations for 2008-09 could not be rejected for omitting lorry receipt numbers and vehicle details where the lorry receipts themselves proved dispatch; those omissions were only minor procedural defects.
Movement of goods from Maharashtra to Buffer Depots and Satellite Depots in other States was treated as stock transfer, not an inter-State sale, because the Agreement and MOU did not create a binding prior contract fixing quantity, specification or determinative price at dispatch. The concluded sales arose only at depot level on receipt and acceptance of purchase orders, and the goods moved as mixed inventory replenishment under stock transfer documents. Form F declarations for 2008-09 could not be rejected for omitting lorry receipt numbers and vehicle details where the lorry receipts themselves proved dispatch; those omissions were only minor procedural defects.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.