Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 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 directed the respondents to refund the differential GST amount, being the difference between GST and VAT, paid by the petitioner for each works contract/composite supply executed before July 1, 2017. The Court held that payments received by the petitioners pre-GST for works executed before July 1, 2017, are assessable under the KVAT tax regime, either under the Composition Tax or VAT scheme as applicable. The respondents were ordered to reimburse the GST amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The petition was allowed.
The High Court directed the respondents to refund the differential GST amount, being the difference between GST and VAT, paid by the petitioner for each works contract/composite supply executed before July 1, 2017. The Court held that payments received by the petitioners pre-GST for works executed before July 1, 2017, are assessable under the KVAT tax regime, either under the Composition Tax or VAT scheme as applicable. The respondents were ordered to reimburse the GST amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
