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...
The AAR held that the applicant is ineligible for exemption under serial no. 66(b)(i) & (ii) of notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) for transportation and catering services provided directly to students, as the consideration was received from students and not from the educational institution. Consequently, the services are not deemed to be provided to the school, failing the primary condition for exemption. The authority further declined to address the question of refund of tax paid on such services in earlier years, as it falls outside the scope of subsection 97(2). Therefore, the applicant cannot claim exemption or refund under the specified notification for the impugned services.
The AAR held that the applicant is ineligible for exemption under serial no. 66(b)(i) & (ii) of notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate) for transportation and catering services provided directly to students, as the consideration was received from students and not from the educational institution. Consequently, the services are not deemed to be provided to the school, failing the primary condition for exemption. The authority further declined to address the question of refund of tax paid on such services in earlier years, as it falls outside the scope of subsection 97(2). Therefore, the applicant cannot claim exemption or refund under the specified notification for the impugned services.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
