Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
