Registration under s.12AB upheld; CIT(Exemptions) exceeded jurisdiction by deciding taxability instead of preliminary verification and registration di...
Dependent Agent PE unresolved for lack of factual inquiry; arm's-length distribution accepted; royalty claim rejected; 15% refund interest (Section 24...
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 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
