Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
A High Court quashed a show cause notice for misapplying the CGST/KGST Act. It held that Section 52 could not be invoked where the e-commerce operator did not collect consideration and was not shown to be collecting tax on behalf of suppliers; the notice also wrongly treated a separate affiliated entity's services as the petitioner's own. Section 17(2) was held inapplicable because the notice did not establish any mixed use for taxable and exempt supplies or any exempt supply attracting reversal of input tax credit. Section 74 could not be invoked without specific allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax. The writ was therefore maintainable and the notice was quashed.
A High Court quashed a show cause notice for misapplying the CGST/KGST Act. It held that Section 52 could not be invoked where the e-commerce operator did not collect consideration and was not shown to be collecting tax on behalf of suppliers; the notice also wrongly treated a separate affiliated entity's services as the petitioner's own. Section 17(2) was held inapplicable because the notice did not establish any mixed use for taxable and exempt supplies or any exempt supply attracting reversal of input tax credit. Section 74 could not be invoked without specific allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax. The writ was therefore maintainable and the notice was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
