Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
Advance ruling sought on eligibility for refund of unutilised input tax credit arising from an inverted duty structure for manufacture and outward supply of cotton yarn; AAR holds that refund query falls outside the enumerated matters under the provision governing advance rulings and is therefore not maintainable, resulting in rejection of the application. AAR further finds the application inadmissible because the applicant is a consultant raising questions on behalf of a client and the question does not relate to supplies undertaken or proposed by the applicant; outcome: application liable to be rejected. AAR notes advance rulings may be void ab initio if obtained by fraud or suppression and that rulings bind the applicant and concerned officer.
Advance ruling sought on eligibility for refund of unutilised input tax credit arising from an inverted duty structure for manufacture and outward supply of cotton yarn; AAR holds that refund query falls outside the enumerated matters under the provision governing advance rulings and is therefore not maintainable, resulting in rejection of the application. AAR further finds the application inadmissible because the applicant is a consultant raising questions on behalf of a client and the question does not relate to supplies undertaken or proposed by the applicant; outcome: application liable to be rejected. AAR notes advance rulings may be void ab initio if obtained by fraud or suppression and that rulings bind the applicant and concerned officer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.