Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
The HC allowed the petition, holding that the impugned declarations under Entry 9 and Entry 10 of the Notifications dated 28.06.2017 are ultra vires the Constitution and the IGST Act insofar as they seek to impose IGST on a service component already subsumed within a composite supply of goods taxed under IGST. Applying binding higher-court authority, the court concluded that duplicative taxation of the service element cannot stand; where legislation treats the composite supply as a tax on goods inclusive of ancillary services, no separate IGST may be levied on the service. Relief was granted to the Petitioner against the Revenue, quashing the notifications to the extent specified.
The HC allowed the petition, holding that the impugned declarations under Entry 9 and Entry 10 of the Notifications dated 28.06.2017 are ultra vires the Constitution and the IGST Act insofar as they seek to impose IGST on a service component already subsumed within a composite supply of goods taxed under IGST. Applying binding higher-court authority, the court concluded that duplicative taxation of the service element cannot stand; where legislation treats the composite supply as a tax on goods inclusive of ancillary services, no separate IGST may be levied on the service. Relief was granted to the Petitioner against the Revenue, quashing the notifications to the extent specified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.