Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
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 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
