International transaction characterisation of domestic divestment of support services business rejected; transaction between resident associated enter...
Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Classification of exported insecticides under export tariff affirmed; reclassification and related penalties set aside and MEIS scrip jurisdiction rec...
Misclassification between copra and dry coconut: customs recovery and re-valuation quashed for lack of prior licensing-authority invalidation, appeals...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6921 to 6940 of 96332 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Clinical trial and related R&D services supplied to a foreign recipient raised the issue whether the place of supply was outside India, making the supply an export and not liable to GST, and whether Notification No. 04/2019-IGST dated 30.09.2019 applied retrospectively to the period April 2018-March 2019. The notification clarified that for such services the place of supply is the location of the recipient, subject to conditions; since the recipient was located in the USA, the supply fell in a non-taxable territory. Treating the notification as beneficial, clarificatory and elucidatory, it was held to operate retrospectively, and the contrary view of the authorities was erroneous; the impugned orders were set aside and the petition was allowed - HC
Clinical trial and related R&D services supplied to a foreign recipient raised the issue whether the place of supply was outside India, making the supply an export and not liable to GST, and whether Notification No. 04/2019-IGST dated 30.09.2019 applied retrospectively to the period April 2018-March 2019. The notification clarified that for such services the place of supply is the location of the recipient, subject to conditions; since the recipient was located in the USA, the supply fell in a non-taxable territory. Treating the notification as beneficial, clarificatory and elucidatory, it was held to operate retrospectively, and the contrary view of the authorities was erroneous; the impugned orders were set aside and the petition was allowed - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.