Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
