Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
Pigmy agents engaged by a bank were treated as employees because the relationship was marked by pervasive control, supervision and disciplinary oversight, with commission functioning in substance as wages. Their services rendered in the course of employment fell within Schedule III read with section 7(2)(a) of the GST law and were therefore neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services. The attempt to classify them as business facilitators liable under reverse charge was rejected, and the show cause notices were quashed for proceeding on an erroneous jurisdictional basis. The challenge to the limitation-extension notifications was left open.
Pigmy agents engaged by a bank were treated as employees because the relationship was marked by pervasive control, supervision and disciplinary oversight, with commission functioning in substance as wages. Their services rendered in the course of employment fell within Schedule III read with section 7(2)(a) of the GST law and were therefore neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services. The attempt to classify them as business facilitators liable under reverse charge was rejected, and the show cause notices were quashed for proceeding on an erroneous jurisdictional basis. The challenge to the limitation-extension notifications was left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
