Jurisdictional facts in certificate-of-origin discrepancies can support customs show-cause proceedings, leaving factual explanations for departmental ...
Market value for captive electricity consumption follows industrial consumer tariffs, supporting profit computation for the power generation deduction...
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 
