Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
HC held that 18% GST is chargeable on the "Human Health and Social Care Services" forming the subject of the tender, relying on the contemporaneous clarification issued by the GST Department. Applying this, HC found no infraction of tender conditions in the procuring authority's decision to evaluate bids on a GST-inclusive basis and to require an indemnity bond from the successful bidder. The authority's treatment of the second respondent as L-1 on a price-inclusive-of-GST comparison was neither arbitrary nor perverse. Noting that the contract has been in operation and that interference would disrupt essential public services, HC declined to interdict the award and dismissed the petition.
HC held that 18% GST is chargeable on the "Human Health and Social Care Services" forming the subject of the tender, relying on the contemporaneous clarification issued by the GST Department. Applying this, HC found no infraction of tender conditions in the procuring authority's decision to evaluate bids on a GST-inclusive basis and to require an indemnity bond from the successful bidder. The authority's treatment of the second respondent as L-1 on a price-inclusive-of-GST comparison was neither arbitrary nor perverse. Noting that the contract has been in operation and that interference would disrupt essential public services, HC declined to interdict the award and dismissed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
