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...
The AAAR set aside the impugned ruling dated 11.5.2022 and remanded the matter back to the GAAR for fresh decision. The case concerned whether value attributable to System Use Gas (SUG) stipulated in customer agreements should be included in consideration for re-gasification services under section 15 of the CGST Act. The AAAR noted that its powers under section 101 of CGST Act are similar to those under section 35A of Central Excise Act and section 85(5) of Finance Act, relying on Gujarat HC precedent in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Medico Labs, holding that established jurisprudence may be considered pari materia when determining the scope of AAAR powers.
The AAAR set aside the impugned ruling dated 11.5.2022 and remanded the matter back to the GAAR for fresh decision. The case concerned whether value attributable to System Use Gas (SUG) stipulated in customer agreements should be included in consideration for re-gasification services under section 15 of the CGST Act. The AAAR noted that its powers under section 101 of CGST Act are similar to those under section 35A of Central Excise Act and section 85(5) of Finance Act, relying on Gujarat HC precedent in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Medico Labs, holding that established jurisprudence may be considered pari materia when determining the scope of AAAR powers.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
