<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (11) TMI 568 - COMMISSIONER OF GST (APPEALS), JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400813</link>
    <description>Under GST valuation, taxable value ordinarily follows the transaction value, being the price actually paid or payable where the parties are not related and price is the sole consideration. The authority relied only on maximum retail price and did not produce material to show that the invoice value was not the true transaction value, nor did it conduct an independent inquiry to establish undervaluation. In the absence of a statutory basis to substitute MRP for invoice value on the facts, the confiscation order and consequential tax, penalty and redemption fine were set aside, and the undervaluation allegation was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2025 13:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628035" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (11) TMI 568 - COMMISSIONER OF GST (APPEALS), JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400813</link>
      <description>Under GST valuation, taxable value ordinarily follows the transaction value, being the price actually paid or payable where the parties are not related and price is the sole consideration. The authority relied only on maximum retail price and did not produce material to show that the invoice value was not the true transaction value, nor did it conduct an independent inquiry to establish undervaluation. In the absence of a statutory basis to substitute MRP for invoice value on the facts, the confiscation order and consequential tax, penalty and redemption fine were set aside, and the undervaluation allegation was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400813</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>