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...
Refund entitlement for zero-rated export services turns on a proper examination of the true nature of the transaction under the governing provisions. The HC held that the adjudicating authority failed to do so and also failed to consider the relevant circular on the effect of non-furnishing of a Letter of Undertaking. It accepted that omission to furnish an LUT/Bond is not an incurable defect and may be considered later for refund purposes. Because the character of the services and the refund claim based on the LUT were not addressed, the adjudication and appellate orders were quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after permitting production of the LUT.
Refund entitlement for zero-rated export services turns on a proper examination of the true nature of the transaction under the governing provisions. The HC held that the adjudicating authority failed to do so and also failed to consider the relevant circular on the effect of non-furnishing of a Letter of Undertaking. It accepted that omission to furnish an LUT/Bond is not an incurable defect and may be considered later for refund purposes. Because the character of the services and the refund claim based on the LUT were not addressed, the adjudication and appellate orders were quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after permitting production of the LUT.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.