Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
HC declared unconstitutional Rule 10 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 and Rule 2(1)(d)(EEC) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and struck down Section 66B (read with Rule 10) insofar as it purported to levy service tax on sea-transportation of goods from a place outside India to the customs station of clearance where both provider and recipient are located outside India. Consequentially, the court quashed enforcement proceedings premised on the impugned notifications and rules, upheld earlier similar holdings, and ordered respondents to verify particulars and refund any service tax paid by the petitioner pursuant to Notification No.15/2017, granting the writ petition with consequential reliefs.
HC declared unconstitutional Rule 10 of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 and Rule 2(1)(d)(EEC) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and struck down Section 66B (read with Rule 10) insofar as it purported to levy service tax on sea-transportation of goods from a place outside India to the customs station of clearance where both provider and recipient are located outside India. Consequentially, the court quashed enforcement proceedings premised on the impugned notifications and rules, upheld earlier similar holdings, and ordered respondents to verify particulars and refund any service tax paid by the petitioner pursuant to Notification No.15/2017, granting the writ petition with consequential reliefs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
