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...
Naphtha procured under exemption notifications for use in the manufacture of fertilizer or ammonia qualified for concessional or nil duty when the goods were intended for that use, even if a portion of the input was diverted to electricity generation that also supported the fertiliser plant. The Court held that the notifications required proof of intended use, not exclusive actual end-use in every downstream stage, so the duty demand on alleged non-eligible use failed. On limitation, extended period invocation required deliberate suppression, fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or contravention with intent to evade duty; those elements were absent, the matter was interpretational, and the dispute was revenue neutral. The demand and penalty were therefore time-barred.
Naphtha procured under exemption notifications for use in the manufacture of fertilizer or ammonia qualified for concessional or nil duty when the goods were intended for that use, even if a portion of the input was diverted to electricity generation that also supported the fertiliser plant. The Court held that the notifications required proof of intended use, not exclusive actual end-use in every downstream stage, so the duty demand on alleged non-eligible use failed. On limitation, extended period invocation required deliberate suppression, fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or contravention with intent to evade duty; those elements were absent, the matter was interpretational, and the dispute was revenue neutral. The demand and penalty were therefore time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
