Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Healthcare services supplied by a clinical establishment through doctors, specialists and para-medical personnel were held exempt under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) read with the CBIC circular, because the substance of the arrangement was direct diagnosis, treatment and medical care to patients. The revenue-sharing structure did not convert the service into manpower supply or business support, and classification under SAC 9985 was rejected. The show cause notices seeking GST on exempt healthcare services were without jurisdiction and were quashed. The writ petitions were maintainable despite the alternative remedy objection because the notices proceeded on an erroneous denial of exemption and the foundational jurisdictional facts were absent.
Healthcare services supplied by a clinical establishment through doctors, specialists and para-medical personnel were held exempt under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) read with the CBIC circular, because the substance of the arrangement was direct diagnosis, treatment and medical care to patients. The revenue-sharing structure did not convert the service into manpower supply or business support, and classification under SAC 9985 was rejected. The show cause notices seeking GST on exempt healthcare services were without jurisdiction and were quashed. The writ petitions were maintainable despite the alternative remedy objection because the notices proceeded on an erroneous denial of exemption and the foundational jurisdictional facts were absent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.