Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC determined that the petitioner is not an "intermediary" under IGST Act, Section 13(8) and Section 2(13). Based on an identical CESTAT order that had attained finality and CBIC Circular clarifying service tax and GST intermediary provisions, the court found no basis to differentiate the petitioner's case. The court remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to process the refund claim with applicable interest within 4 weeks, effectively allowing the petitioner's claim for IGST refund.
HC determined that the petitioner is not an "intermediary" under IGST Act, Section 13(8) and Section 2(13). Based on an identical CESTAT order that had attained finality and CBIC Circular clarifying service tax and GST intermediary provisions, the court found no basis to differentiate the petitioner's case. The court remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to process the refund claim with applicable interest within 4 weeks, effectively allowing the petitioner's claim for IGST refund.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
