Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
CESTAT adjudicated a service tax dispute involving OIDAR services contracted by an overseas head office with CRS/GDS companies. The tribunal held that services provided between entities in Singapore and Hong Kong fall outside service tax levy under Section 66. The Indian branch office was not deemed liable for service tax on reverse charge basis, as the services were conducted exclusively between non-Indian entities. The tribunal distinguished between head office and branch office legal identities, concluding that the branch office cannot be compelled to pay service tax for transactions not directly involving Indian territorial jurisdiction. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT adjudicated a service tax dispute involving OIDAR services contracted by an overseas head office with CRS/GDS companies. The tribunal held that services provided between entities in Singapore and Hong Kong fall outside service tax levy under Section 66. The Indian branch office was not deemed liable for service tax on reverse charge basis, as the services were conducted exclusively between non-Indian entities. The tribunal distinguished between head office and branch office legal identities, concluding that the branch office cannot be compelled to pay service tax for transactions not directly involving Indian territorial jurisdiction. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
