Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
The High Court held that for a works contract involving construction of a barrage across two states, Telangana and Maharashtra, the place of supply would be determined proportionately based on the value of services rendered in each state as per Section 12(3) of the IGST Act. Consequently, the supply would qualify as an intra-state supply u/s 8 of the IGST Act in proportion to the work executed in the respective states by the contractors registered there. The tax liability must be discharged individually in each state commensurate with the work executed therein. The petitioner's refund claim for TDS was rejected due to lack of evidence regarding discharge of tax liability in Maharashtra. However, the High Court allowed the petitioner to approach the adjudicating authority with relevant documents proving tax payment in Maharashtra for reconsideration of the refund claim after due opportunity to both parties.
The High Court held that for a works contract involving construction of a barrage across two states, Telangana and Maharashtra, the place of supply would be determined proportionately based on the value of services rendered in each state as per Section 12(3) of the IGST Act. Consequently, the supply would qualify as an intra-state supply u/s 8 of the IGST Act in proportion to the work executed in the respective states by the contractors registered there. The tax liability must be discharged individually in each state commensurate with the work executed therein. The petitioner's refund claim for TDS was rejected due to lack of evidence regarding discharge of tax liability in Maharashtra. However, the High Court allowed the petitioner to approach the adjudicating authority with relevant documents proving tax payment in Maharashtra for reconsideration of the refund claim after due opportunity to both parties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
