Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The High Court held that since the nature of supply was intra-state in respective states, the tax liability shall be discharged individually in each state equivalent to the work executed there. As the petitioner joint venture (JV) failed to produce the inter se agreement or evidence regarding the proportion of work executed by each partner in the respective states, the court could not determine the tax liability. The court observed that the petitioner had not provided evidence of discharging tax liability in Maharashtra. Regarding the refund claim, the court held that as per Section 12(3) of the IGST Act, the place of supply shall be both states, and the nature of supply is intra-state proportionate to the value of services rendered in each state. The demand notices were kept in abeyance till disposal of the refund application in accordance with the court's order in related writ petitions.
The High Court held that since the nature of supply was intra-state in respective states, the tax liability shall be discharged individually in each state equivalent to the work executed there. As the petitioner joint venture (JV) failed to produce the inter se agreement or evidence regarding the proportion of work executed by each partner in the respective states, the court could not determine the tax liability. The court observed that the petitioner had not provided evidence of discharging tax liability in Maharashtra. Regarding the refund claim, the court held that as per Section 12(3) of the IGST Act, the place of supply shall be both states, and the nature of supply is intra-state proportionate to the value of services rendered in each state. The demand notices were kept in abeyance till disposal of the refund application in accordance with the court's order in related writ petitions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
