Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
The High Court held that the levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on ocean freight paid by the petitioner was unconstitutional. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Anr. v. M/s Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and its own decision in Bla Coke Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., wherein it was categorically held that when the Notification itself is struck down, the authorities cannot insist on the levy of IGST on the amount of ocean freight. The High Court determined that this was not a case of unconstitutional levy or illegal levy but rather a voluntary payment made under a mistake of law. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, the High Court held that the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking refund of the IGST was maintainable and allowed the petition, directing the respondents to refund the IGST amount to the petitioner.
The High Court held that the levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on ocean freight paid by the petitioner was unconstitutional. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Anr. v. M/s Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and its own decision in Bla Coke Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., wherein it was categorically held that when the Notification itself is struck down, the authorities cannot insist on the levy of IGST on the amount of ocean freight. The High Court determined that this was not a case of unconstitutional levy or illegal levy but rather a voluntary payment made under a mistake of law. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, the High Court held that the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking refund of the IGST was maintainable and allowed the petition, directing the respondents to refund the IGST amount to the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
