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 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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
