Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

Holding Company's Share Ownership Not a "Supply of Service" Under GST, Court Rules Order Illegal and Arbitrary.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Supply of Services - activity of holding of shares of subsidiary company by holding company - During the proceedings, the Central and State Governments issued clarifications stating that merely holding shares in a subsidiary company by a holding company should not be treated as a "supply of service" under GST. Based on these clarifications, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the activity of holding shares in a subsidiary by a holding company cannot be construed as "supply of service" as per GST law. - Accordingly, the High court held that the impugned order was illegal and arbitrary, as it wrongly classified holding shares in a subsidiary as "supply of service".....