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...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
For a transaction to be treated as inter-State sale under section 3(a) of the CST Act, the movement of goods must be occasioned by a prior contract of sale. On the agency agreement effective from 01.08.1995, the goods remained the principal's property, the agent sold on behalf of the principal, and the appellant discharged the initial burden under section 6A by producing documents and Form F declarations. The CESTAT erred in relying on pre-agreement material to characterise later movements as sales, so the post-01.08.1995 turnover was held to be consignment sales and the contrary assessment was set aside. The enhanced penalty based on that finding also fell away, while the reduced penalty on the remaining tax difference was maintained.
For a transaction to be treated as inter-State sale under section 3(a) of the CST Act, the movement of goods must be occasioned by a prior contract of sale. On the agency agreement effective from 01.08.1995, the goods remained the principal's property, the agent sold on behalf of the principal, and the appellant discharged the initial burden under section 6A by producing documents and Form F declarations. The CESTAT erred in relying on pre-agreement material to characterise later movements as sales, so the post-01.08.1995 turnover was held to be consignment sales and the contrary assessment was set aside. The enhanced penalty based on that finding also fell away, while the reduced penalty on the remaining tax difference was maintained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.