Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
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 4809 
Join Channel 
