Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that considering the declaration issued by Indian Oil Corporation Limited stating they had discharged GST liability under RCM on services availed from the appellant, the appellant would be entitled to take advantage of the same. The matter was remanded back to the original authority for re-adjudication considering this subsequent development. The HC observed that while issuing show-cause notice, the Assessing Officer had relied upon an Advance Ruling Authority decision which held that the activity in question was not covered under SAC 9991 and should be taxed at 18%. The orders of the Appellate and Original Authorities were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The HC held that considering the declaration issued by Indian Oil Corporation Limited stating they had discharged GST liability under RCM on services availed from the appellant, the appellant would be entitled to take advantage of the same. The matter was remanded back to the original authority for re-adjudication considering this subsequent development. The HC observed that while issuing show-cause notice, the Assessing Officer had relied upon an Advance Ruling Authority decision which held that the activity in question was not covered under SAC 9991 and should be taxed at 18%. The orders of the Appellate and Original Authorities were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.