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...
HC determined that Notification No. 54/2018-Central Tax amending Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules operates prospectively from October 9, 2018, not retrospectively from October 23, 2017. The court quashed summons, notices, and recovery proceedings initiated based on retrospective application of the notification. Any quantification of alleged erroneous refunds for periods before October 9, 2018, was held invalid and without jurisdiction. The ruling aligned with previous rectification order in Cosmo Films Limited case which corrected the earlier misinterpretation regarding notification's effective date. The decision establishes clear temporal boundaries for enforcement of amended Rule 96(10).
HC determined that Notification No. 54/2018-Central Tax amending Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules operates prospectively from October 9, 2018, not retrospectively from October 23, 2017. The court quashed summons, notices, and recovery proceedings initiated based on retrospective application of the notification. Any quantification of alleged erroneous refunds for periods before October 9, 2018, was held invalid and without jurisdiction. The ruling aligned with previous rectification order in Cosmo Films Limited case which corrected the earlier misinterpretation regarding notification's effective date. The decision establishes clear temporal boundaries for enforcement of amended Rule 96(10).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.