Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Whether the impugned supplies qualified as export of services under Section 2(6) IGST and whether the petitioner was an "intermediary" under Section 13(2)/place of supply under Section 13(8)(b) was the dominant issue. The court held the authorities failed to make requisite findings on (a) existence of a third party intermeddling in transactions, (b) whether supplies were between two principals or by the petitioner on its own account, and (c) whether the petitioner merely arranged/facilitated supplies; their orders were cryptic and showed non-application of mind. Consequence: impugned orders set aside and matter remanded to appellate and refund sanctioning authorities for fresh decision. - HC
Whether the impugned supplies qualified as export of services under Section 2(6) IGST and whether the petitioner was an "intermediary" under Section 13(2)/place of supply under Section 13(8)(b) was the dominant issue. The court held the authorities failed to make requisite findings on (a) existence of a third party intermeddling in transactions, (b) whether supplies were between two principals or by the petitioner on its own account, and (c) whether the petitioner merely arranged/facilitated supplies; their orders were cryptic and showed non-application of mind. Consequence: impugned orders set aside and matter remanded to appellate and refund sanctioning authorities for fresh decision. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
