Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6361 to 6380 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Payment of damages under an arbitral award did not amount to a taxable supply under the CGST Act because the settlement before the Delhi High Court was not an independent commercial arrangement to refrain from an act or tolerate a situation. The withdrawal or suspension of enforcement proceedings in the UK and US followed only from full satisfaction of the award and did not create separate consideration or a distinct service. In the absence of an independent contract and consideration, Section 7 and Entry 5(e) of Schedule II were inapplicable, and the IGST charge could not be sustained. The intimation and show cause notice were quashed for lack of jurisdiction, and the writ petition was entertained despite the alternate remedy rule.
Payment of damages under an arbitral award did not amount to a taxable supply under the CGST Act because the settlement before the Delhi High Court was not an independent commercial arrangement to refrain from an act or tolerate a situation. The withdrawal or suspension of enforcement proceedings in the UK and US followed only from full satisfaction of the award and did not create separate consideration or a distinct service. In the absence of an independent contract and consideration, Section 7 and Entry 5(e) of Schedule II were inapplicable, and the IGST charge could not be sustained. The intimation and show cause notice were quashed for lack of jurisdiction, and the writ petition was entertained despite the alternate remedy rule.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
