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 High Court held that the demand for tax on the service aspect of a composite supply involving import of goods and related services like transportation and insurance is in violation of Section 2(30) read with Section 8 of the CGST Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. M/s.Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the demand confirmed in paragraphs 15(g) and 15(h) of the impugned order was dropped. However, the demand arising from the mismatch between Input Tax Credit availed and tax paid by the supplier, and the demand for tax on renewal charges for the Factory License, can be adjudicated by the petitioner before the Appellate Commissioner. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the remaining demands confirmed in the impugned order. The writ petition was partly allowed.
The High Court held that the demand for tax on the service aspect of a composite supply involving import of goods and related services like transportation and insurance is in violation of Section 2(30) read with Section 8 of the CGST Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. M/s.Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the demand confirmed in paragraphs 15(g) and 15(h) of the impugned order was dropped. However, the demand arising from the mismatch between Input Tax Credit availed and tax paid by the supplier, and the demand for tax on renewal charges for the Factory License, can be adjudicated by the petitioner before the Appellate Commissioner. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the remaining demands confirmed in the impugned order. The writ petition was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
