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...
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.