Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
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 4814 
Join Channel 
