Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
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...
AAR ruled that supply of Mobile Veterinary Unit (MVU) personnel on contractual basis for implementing veterinary healthcare schemes does not qualify for GST exemption under N/N. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). The authority distinguished between direct veterinary services and manpower supply, noting that the applicant merely provides contractual staff to the implementing agency rather than operating as a veterinary clinic. The ruling established that two separate supplies occur: first between applicant and implementing agency, then between agency and government department. Since the applicant's service constitutes manpower supply rather than direct veterinary healthcare, it falls outside the scope of exemptions under notification entries 3, 3A, 5, 6, and 46.
AAR ruled that supply of Mobile Veterinary Unit (MVU) personnel on contractual basis for implementing veterinary healthcare schemes does not qualify for GST exemption under N/N. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). The authority distinguished between direct veterinary services and manpower supply, noting that the applicant merely provides contractual staff to the implementing agency rather than operating as a veterinary clinic. The ruling established that two separate supplies occur: first between applicant and implementing agency, then between agency and government department. Since the applicant's service constitutes manpower supply rather than direct veterinary healthcare, it falls outside the scope of exemptions under notification entries 3, 3A, 5, 6, and 46.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
