Service permanent establishment requires non-auxiliary services, while arm's-length distributor remuneration precludes further profit attribution in I...
Make-available condition excludes standard SaaS subscription receipts where customers receive no independently usable technical knowledge after subscr...
Anonymous donation classification fails where charitable trusts maintain undisputed donor identity records and evidence corpus contributions' intended...
The HC held that invoking the extended period of limitation u/s 74 of the CGST Act is a jurisdictional aspect in the present case. The petitioner has been paying GST at 5% under Entry No. 181-A for the product in question since 2017, while paying higher GST at 12% for different products. As Entry No. 181-A is not different from the similarly worded sub-heading 3003.31 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which has been repeatedly interpreted contrary to the allegations in the show cause notice, the aspect of invoking the extended period requires consideration along with the binding nature of the GST Council's deliberations. The HC found the issues raised to be jurisdictional and issued notice for further consideration.
The HC held that invoking the extended period of limitation u/s 74 of the CGST Act is a jurisdictional aspect in the present case. The petitioner has been paying GST at 5% under Entry No. 181-A for the product in question since 2017, while paying higher GST at 12% for different products. As Entry No. 181-A is not different from the similarly worded sub-heading 3003.31 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which has been repeatedly interpreted contrary to the allegations in the show cause notice, the aspect of invoking the extended period requires consideration along with the binding nature of the GST Council's deliberations. The HC found the issues raised to be jurisdictional and issued notice for further consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
