Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
