Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
