Director liability cannot be imposed without lifting the corporate veil; burden rests on revenue to prove director responsibility.
Directors of a public limited company cannot be held personally liable for service tax or GST dues absent lifting the corporate veil or satisfying statutory prerequisites; where statutes impose joint and several liability for recoveries from private companies, the department must first establish company liability and then prove that non-recovery results from a director's gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty, with non executive directors excluded unless responsibility for conduct of business is shown. (AI Summary)

Doctrine of mutuality bars GST on interest-free maintenance security until the deposit is appropriated as consideration for services.
IFMS collected by builders is not taxable on receipt because under the doctrine of mutuality transactions between societies and members are not supplies and, under the CGST definition of consideration, a deposit is excluded from consideration unless the supplier appropriates it as payment for a supply; GST becomes payable only when the deposit is applied as consideration for services. (AI Summary)

Director liability for tax recovery: private company directors can be held jointly and severally liable under GST provisions.
Recovery of service tax from directors was previously impermissible without statutory authority or clear factual findings to pierce the corporate veil; courts require positive material, personal show cause notices and proof of active involvement, misfeasance or fraud before imposing liability. The GST framework, however, treats amounts confirmed under earlier law as recoverable arrears and provides that where dues of a private company cannot be recovered, its directors during the relevant period may be jointly and severally liable unless they prove non recovery was not due to gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty. (AI Summary)

Re-import exemption: IGST not leviable on jewellery returned from exhibition abroad when the outward movement is not a supply.
Re-imports of jewellery sent abroad for exhibition or on consignment do not attract IGST where the outward movement was not a 'supply' under the CGST Act and no integrated tax was paid at export; such cases fall under the residuary exemption entry of the Customs exemption notification rather than the clause requiring IGST payment at re-import, provided re-import occurs within the prescribed timeframe from the delivery challan. (AI Summary)

IGST on re imports may be demanded where initial export availed LUT exemption, challenging re import exemption under customs rules.
Customs has issued demands for IGST, interest and penalties on re-imported precious and semi precious studded jewellery, rejecting exemption under Entry 5 of Notification No.45/2017 on the ground that the goods were initially exported under LUT availing IGST exemption; Customs contends Entry 1(d) applies so IGST equivalent to that leviable on initial export must be paid. Re imports follow SOP dated 29.03.2016, section 20 Customs Act governs liability, and Notification No.45/2017 prescribes conditional re import exemptions with specified table entries. (AI Summary)

Retrospective application of amended limitation periods cannot revive time barred tax demands; vested rights remain protected.
The Finance Act, 2016's extension of limitation periods for issuing show cause notices is presumptively prospective and, lacking express retrospective language or clear legislative intent, cannot revive demands which had become time barred under the earlier law; procedural amendments will not be construed to impair vested rights or open up barred liability where doing so would offend the presumption of prospectivity and the doctrine of fairness. (AI Summary)

Anushka Sharma wedding ring highlights proof of prior export and baggage rules affecting duty on re-imported jewellery.
Whether jewellery returned in accompanied baggage is exempt from duty depends on the baggage regime and proof of prior export. The Baggage Rules, 2016 limit duty-free jewellery allowances, exclude jewellery from "personal effects," and remove an earlier concession for previously exported jewellery, increasing reliance on documentary proof. Section 20 treats re-imported goods as generally liable to duty, subject to notifications, while export certificates serve as the primary means to establish duty-free re-import and avoid redemption fines and personal penalties. (AI Summary)

Return simplification: propose a combined, simplified GST return with GSTIN level matching to reduce compliance burden.
Proposes a structured long term design for GST returns emphasising a single, simplified filing process and alignment of payment and return frequency. Recommends operational fixes for GSTR 3B (single screen UI, "Sign and Submit", net liability preview, negative value entry, revision facility, differential due dates, and taxpayer choice in ledger cross utilisation) and redesigns for GSTR 1/GSTR 2 (comprehensive offline tool, GSTIN level matching, removal of non value data, consolidation of tables, combined/quarterly returns with reconciliation, relaxed HSN and invoice level requirements, and improved import data integration). (AI Summary)

Input tax credit on gifts blocked when disposal lacks taxable consideration; valuation rules and B2B/B2C classification determine GST consequences.
Section 17(5)(h) blocks input tax credit on goods disposed of by way of gift or free samples even if inward supplies are used in the course or furtherance of business under Section 16. If a transfer carries extra-commercial or contractual consideration it must be valued under the Valuation Rules and treated as a taxable outward supply, preserving corresponding ITC effects. Purchases intended as gifts can be structured as B2C to avoid ITC entitlement and reduce reversal and reconciliation burdens; transfers to employees require separate treatment under Schedule I and Schedule III. (AI Summary)

Service tax valuation: TDS generally excluded from taxable service value unless valuation law explicitly includes it.
The analysis concludes that service tax value is the gross amount charged by the service provider and statutory levies imposed or collected by others (including TDS) are excluded from service-tax valuation unless valuation rules expressly include them. For import of services Rule 7 fixes value as the actual consideration charged or total consideration paid and does not automatically add TDS withheld to that base. Grossing up under Income-tax provisions does not by itself expand service-tax valuation, and the payer must still issue TDS certificates under income-tax law. (AI Summary)