Misdeclaration of quantity rejected where supplier evidence established counting errors, so reassessment, confiscation and redemption fine were set as...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6221 to 6240 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
