Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
The High Court addressed the issue of tax deduction at source for work contracts and supplies, and entitlement to Additional Tax Reimbursement u/s 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. To invoke Section 64A, two pre-conditions must be met: absence of a contrary contract and duty rate change post-contract. The court referenced MAFATLAL case on unjust enrichment. The case involved potential input tax credit benefits post-July 2017. Circular No. 3/2017-GST mandates GST payment at 6% u/s 12 and 13 of the Act of 2017 and CGST. Court upheld the 6% GST liability for invoices post-July 2017. The court couldn't determine Section 64A benefit due to insufficient evidence. Writ petition was disposed of.
The High Court addressed the issue of tax deduction at source for work contracts and supplies, and entitlement to Additional Tax Reimbursement u/s 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. To invoke Section 64A, two pre-conditions must be met: absence of a contrary contract and duty rate change post-contract. The court referenced MAFATLAL case on unjust enrichment. The case involved potential input tax credit benefits post-July 2017. Circular No. 3/2017-GST mandates GST payment at 6% u/s 12 and 13 of the Act of 2017 and CGST. Court upheld the 6% GST liability for invoices post-July 2017. The court couldn't determine Section 64A benefit due to insufficient evidence. Writ petition was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
