Mis-declaration and Concealment: confiscation affirmed, transaction value re-determined and mandatory penalty sustained; redemption allowed on payment...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5561 to 5580 of 96208 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.