Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Goods bearing a common pictorial representation and packaging features were held to fall within the amended definition of brand name, but the exemption under Serial Nos. 73 and 74 of Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as amended, remained available because the petitioner had filed the prescribed affidavit voluntarily foregoing any actionable claim or enforceable right over the brand name and the department had treated the goods as unbranded. The corporate name printed on the package, being required under food and legal metrology laws, could not by itself defeat the exemption. The invocation of the extended period under Section 74 also failed, as the relevant facts were already disclosed to the department; only the normal period under Section 73 could apply. The issue of bunching multiple tax periods in one notice was left open.
Goods bearing a common pictorial representation and packaging features were held to fall within the amended definition of brand name, but the exemption under Serial Nos. 73 and 74 of Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as amended, remained available because the petitioner had filed the prescribed affidavit voluntarily foregoing any actionable claim or enforceable right over the brand name and the department had treated the goods as unbranded. The corporate name printed on the package, being required under food and legal metrology laws, could not by itself defeat the exemption. The invocation of the extended period under Section 74 also failed, as the relevant facts were already disclosed to the department; only the normal period under Section 73 could apply. The issue of bunching multiple tax periods in one notice was left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
