Membership-consent thresholds for oppression petitions are satisfied by unchallenged voter-list consents, while unsupported forgery claims require pro...
Juridical seat versus arbitral venue determines supervisory court jurisdiction, while timely award challenges remain within the prescribed limitation ...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4884 
