Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Grant-in-aid from CCRAS was treated as consideration because the payments were linked to approved proposals, deliverables, reporting, audits and specified research work, and the subsidy exclusion for Government grants did not extend by implication. The appellant and CCRAS were separate legal persons, so the research work constituted supply between distinct taxable persons in the course of business, and the appellant was not a pure agent. Exemption under Entries 3 and 3A was denied because the services were research and documentation for a central research body, not functions entrusted to Panchayat or Municipality bodies. The work was classified as taxable research and development services under Heading 9981, and the appeal was rejected.
Grant-in-aid from CCRAS was treated as consideration because the payments were linked to approved proposals, deliverables, reporting, audits and specified research work, and the subsidy exclusion for Government grants did not extend by implication. The appellant and CCRAS were separate legal persons, so the research work constituted supply between distinct taxable persons in the course of business, and the appellant was not a pure agent. Exemption under Entries 3 and 3A was denied because the services were research and documentation for a central research body, not functions entrusted to Panchayat or Municipality bodies. The work was classified as taxable research and development services under Heading 9981, and the appeal was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
