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...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 96136 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.