Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A post-01.07.2017 works contract was held to fall under the GST regime, so the contractor could not insist on the pre-GST tax rate. Clause 42.1 was construed to entitle reimbursement of Central and State taxes actually levied and paid on completed items of work, and CGST/SGST were held covered within that expression. The absence of an incorporated Schedule A could not defeat the contractual reimbursement right. GST returns and portal statements were accepted as proof of payment. The refusal to reimburse was found arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and interest at 12% per annum was awarded from the respective dates of payment. The writ petition was held maintainable because the dispute turned on contract interpretation, not disputed facts.
A post-01.07.2017 works contract was held to fall under the GST regime, so the contractor could not insist on the pre-GST tax rate. Clause 42.1 was construed to entitle reimbursement of Central and State taxes actually levied and paid on completed items of work, and CGST/SGST were held covered within that expression. The absence of an incorporated Schedule A could not defeat the contractual reimbursement right. GST returns and portal statements were accepted as proof of payment. The refusal to reimburse was found arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and interest at 12% per annum was awarded from the respective dates of payment. The writ petition was held maintainable because the dispute turned on contract interpretation, not disputed facts.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.