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...
Core procurement services rendered by a foreign group procurement hub to an Indian entity were held not to be intermediary services, because the arrangement satisfied neither the statutory two-supply character of an intermediary nor a mere facilitation role. The Tribunal treated the foreign entity as an independent contractor acting on its own account under a principal-to-principal arrangement, so the services were an import of services with place of supply in India and were taxable there, defeating the refund claim. It also held that a refund application under the GST refund framework cannot be rejected solely as an afterthought merely because tax was first paid and non-taxability was later asserted.
Core procurement services rendered by a foreign group procurement hub to an Indian entity were held not to be intermediary services, because the arrangement satisfied neither the statutory two-supply character of an intermediary nor a mere facilitation role. The Tribunal treated the foreign entity as an independent contractor acting on its own account under a principal-to-principal arrangement, so the services were an import of services with place of supply in India and were taxable there, defeating the refund claim. It also held that a refund application under the GST refund framework cannot be rejected solely as an afterthought merely because tax was first paid and non-taxability was later asserted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.