Charitable registration renewal cannot become an assessment of receipts, profitability or annual exemption compliance, requiring renewal and donation ...
AMP expenditure for own business is not an international transaction without an associated-enterprise arrangement, eliminating transfer pricing adjust...
Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 of 96463 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
GST could not be levied again on a shipping line's ocean freight services for CIF imports where the freight component had already suffered customs duty in the import transaction, because the transportation service formed part of a composite supply. The Court held that taxing the same service element separately in the hands of the petitioner would amount to double taxation and would be inconsistent with the GST scheme. Relying on Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., it found that transportation and insurance in a CIF contract are naturally bundled with the supply of goods. The show-cause notice and adjudication order were quashed, and refund with interest was directed.
GST could not be levied again on a shipping line's ocean freight services for CIF imports where the freight component had already suffered customs duty in the import transaction, because the transportation service formed part of a composite supply. The Court held that taxing the same service element separately in the hands of the petitioner would amount to double taxation and would be inconsistent with the GST scheme. Relying on Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., it found that transportation and insurance in a CIF contract are naturally bundled with the supply of goods. The show-cause notice and adjudication order were quashed, and refund with interest was directed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.