Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
AAR admitted a registered recipient's advance ruling application, relying on Calcutta HC authority that a registered person can seek ruling on merits. It held that the temple's grant of licence to collect human hair from its premises was a separate commercial arrangement, distinct from devotees' religious tonsuring, and constituted a supply of service under GST because the temple transferred a right for consideration in the course of business. The exemption for human hair as goods did not apply because the transaction was not a sale of goods but a licensed service. The question whether the temple was business premises was not answered as it fell outside the limited scope of advance ruling jurisdiction.
AAR admitted a registered recipient's advance ruling application, relying on Calcutta HC authority that a registered person can seek ruling on merits. It held that the temple's grant of licence to collect human hair from its premises was a separate commercial arrangement, distinct from devotees' religious tonsuring, and constituted a supply of service under GST because the temple transferred a right for consideration in the course of business. The exemption for human hair as goods did not apply because the transaction was not a sale of goods but a licensed service. The question whether the temple was business premises was not answered as it fell outside the limited scope of advance ruling jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
