Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
