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...
Valuation u/s 15(3) - Validity of GST on volume discount - Petitioner submited that, GST is levied and paid on the entire invoice amount, which includes volume discount. - Demand of GST on volume discount would be double taxation. - The High Court observed that, there is no scope for confusing the discount offered to the petitioner and the discounted price at which the petitioner effects further sale to its customers. They are two independent transactions and there is no scope for intermingling them for demanding tax from the petitioner. The discounted price at which the petitioner sells the goods is relevant only for determining the “transaction value” adopted by the petitioner. - Consequently, HC restored back the matter to AO for fresh adjudication.
Valuation u/s 15(3) - Validity of GST on volume discount - Petitioner submited that, GST is levied and paid on the entire invoice amount, which includes volume discount. - Demand of GST on volume discount would be double taxation. - The High Court observed that, there is no scope for confusing the discount offered to the petitioner and the discounted price at which the petitioner effects further sale to its customers. They are two independent transactions and there is no scope for intermingling them for demanding tax from the petitioner. The discounted price at which the petitioner sells the goods is relevant only for determining the “transaction value” adopted by the petitioner. - Consequently, HC restored back the matter to AO for fresh adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
