Request-driven road restoration attracts reverse-charge GST, not governmental-function treatment or compensatory-damages status for business recipient...
Road restoration charges for commercial pipeline works are taxable Government services, with reverse charge liability and no public-function exemption...
Model-wise import cap monitoring cannot justify withholding used multifunction machines where all-India tracking is absent and full security is furnis...
The case revolves around the rejection of the declared value by customs authorities and the subsequent enhancement of value based on a quotation obtained from a different supplier. The key points are: The original authority rejected the declared value and determined the value based on a quotation from another supplier, which was accepted by the importer. However, the Tribunal held that a proforma invoice or quotation cannot constitute a valid basis for enhancing the value of imported goods, as per the precedent set in the Sahara Enterprises case. The transaction value accepted by another importer in a different case cannot be the basis for valuation in the present case, where there is no such consent from the importer. Transaction value is a function of price, but there was no evidence of any flow back or additional payment by the importer over the declared transaction value. The Revenue failed to prove its case, and the impugned order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.
The case revolves around the rejection of the declared value by customs authorities and the subsequent enhancement of value based on a quotation obtained from a different supplier. The key points are: The original authority rejected the declared value and determined the value based on a quotation from another supplier, which was accepted by the importer. However, the Tribunal held that a proforma invoice or quotation cannot constitute a valid basis for enhancing the value of imported goods, as per the precedent set in the Sahara Enterprises case. The transaction value accepted by another importer in a different case cannot be the basis for valuation in the present case, where there is no such consent from the importer. Transaction value is a function of price, but there was no evidence of any flow back or additional payment by the importer over the declared transaction value. The Revenue failed to prove its case, and the impugned order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
