Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
The High Court prima facie found the notification No. 56/2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to be inconsistent with Section 168(A) of the Central GST Act, 2017. Consequently, any actions based on the said notification would fail. While acknowledging the petitioner's entitlement to reliefs proposed in the Financial Bill 2024, the Court deemed it necessary to examine the applicability of force majeure concerning the notification, considering the Minutes of the 49th GST Council Meeting. However, the respondent authorities were granted an opportunity to present their stance and materials justifying the force majeure claim. Interim protection was granted to the petitioner, prohibiting coercive action based on the impugned assessment order dated 18.04.2024 until the next hearing scheduled for 21.08.2024, with the respondents directed to file affidavits by 19.08.2024.
The High Court prima facie found the notification No. 56/2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to be inconsistent with Section 168(A) of the Central GST Act, 2017. Consequently, any actions based on the said notification would fail. While acknowledging the petitioner's entitlement to reliefs proposed in the Financial Bill 2024, the Court deemed it necessary to examine the applicability of force majeure concerning the notification, considering the Minutes of the 49th GST Council Meeting. However, the respondent authorities were granted an opportunity to present their stance and materials justifying the force majeure claim. Interim protection was granted to the petitioner, prohibiting coercive action based on the impugned assessment order dated 18.04.2024 until the next hearing scheduled for 21.08.2024, with the respondents directed to file affidavits by 19.08.2024.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
