Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
This case pertains to the liability of an appellant to pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) on a reverse charge basis for two specific services: supply of services by the Managing Director through personal guarantees on loans obtained by the company, and supply of services by extending loans from the petitioner-company to its subsidiary. The High Court held that Circular No. 204/16/2023-GST and Circular No. 218/12/2024-GST issued by the Central Board are binding on the authorities. The respondent department's counsel did not dispute the applicability of these circulars to the issues raised. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned show cause notice.
This case pertains to the liability of an appellant to pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) on a reverse charge basis for two specific services: supply of services by the Managing Director through personal guarantees on loans obtained by the company, and supply of services by extending loans from the petitioner-company to its subsidiary. The High Court held that Circular No. 204/16/2023-GST and Circular No. 218/12/2024-GST issued by the Central Board are binding on the authorities. The respondent department's counsel did not dispute the applicability of these circulars to the issues raised. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned show cause notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
