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...
Demurrage charges and dispatch money under charter party arrangements were held not taxable as port services or declared service because the demands failed to identify the actual service provider and recipient, and the amounts were contractual adjustments linked to freight and delivery obligations rather than consideration for a separate service. The reverse charge demand on consulting engineering service also failed because the foreign contractor had an Indian establishment that was registered, discharged service tax on forward charge, and the appellant reimbursed that tax under the contract; section 66A could not be invoked to impose a second levy on the same transaction. The related penalties were set aside.
Demurrage charges and dispatch money under charter party arrangements were held not taxable as port services or declared service because the demands failed to identify the actual service provider and recipient, and the amounts were contractual adjustments linked to freight and delivery obligations rather than consideration for a separate service. The reverse charge demand on consulting engineering service also failed because the foreign contractor had an Indian establishment that was registered, discharged service tax on forward charge, and the appellant reimbursed that tax under the contract; section 66A could not be invoked to impose a second levy on the same transaction. The related penalties were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
