Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
HC determined that the petitioner is an independent service provider, not an intermediary under IGST Act. Services rendered to overseas recipients constitute export of services exempt from GST liability. The court quashed the appellate authority's order dated 01.09.2023, restored the original order dated 28.07.2022 granting refund for April and May 2022, and held that refund claims under Section 54 of CGST Act are maintainable and not time-barred. The petition was consequently allowed, affirming the petitioner's right to claim GST refund.
HC determined that the petitioner is an independent service provider, not an intermediary under IGST Act. Services rendered to overseas recipients constitute export of services exempt from GST liability. The court quashed the appellate authority's order dated 01.09.2023, restored the original order dated 28.07.2022 granting refund for April and May 2022, and held that refund claims under Section 54 of CGST Act are maintainable and not time-barred. The petition was consequently allowed, affirming the petitioner's right to claim GST refund.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.