Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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.