Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
HC ruled on GST rate applicability for works contract services. The retrospective reduction of GST rate from 18% to 12% recommended by GST Council on 5th August, 2017 was not legally binding until formal notification on 21st September, 2017. The court held that the original GST rate of 18% prescribed in the 8th July, 2017 notification remained valid for tenders submitted before the final notification date. The GST Council's recommendation alone cannot be construed as a statutory rate change, particularly considering constitutional provisions. Consequently, the petitioner's claim for retrospective rate reduction was rejected, and the petition was dismissed.
HC ruled on GST rate applicability for works contract services. The retrospective reduction of GST rate from 18% to 12% recommended by GST Council on 5th August, 2017 was not legally binding until formal notification on 21st September, 2017. The court held that the original GST rate of 18% prescribed in the 8th July, 2017 notification remained valid for tenders submitted before the final notification date. The GST Council's recommendation alone cannot be construed as a statutory rate change, particularly considering constitutional provisions. Consequently, the petitioner's claim for retrospective rate reduction was rejected, and the petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.