Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
