Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 4816 
Join Channel 
