Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Levy of GST - activity of holding equity capital by the parent Company in the Petitioner - ultravires Section 5 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 or not - The High Court concluded that mere holding of shares by a holding company in its subsidiary cannot be classified as a supply of service, as clarified by circulars issued by both the Central and State Governments. The court held that such activity does not fall within the purview of GST. - Given the similarity of the present case to the referenced judgment, the High Court held that the impugned Show Cause Notices were without jurisdiction or authority of law. Consequently, the court quashed the notices issued by the respondent.
Levy of GST - activity of holding equity capital by the parent Company in the Petitioner - ultravires Section 5 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 or not - The High Court concluded that mere holding of shares by a holding company in its subsidiary cannot be classified as a supply of service, as clarified by circulars issued by both the Central and State Governments. The court held that such activity does not fall within the purview of GST. - Given the similarity of the present case to the referenced judgment, the High Court held that the impugned Show Cause Notices were without jurisdiction or authority of law. Consequently, the court quashed the notices issued by the respondent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
