
๐ซ ๐๐ฒ๐น๐ต๐ถ ๐๐ ๐ค๐๐ฎ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ ๐ง๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐บ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐บ๐ฝ๐น๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐ฑ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ โ ๐ก๐ผ ๐๐๐ฆ๐ง ๐๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฏ๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐๐ ๐ผ๐ป '๐ก๐ถ๐น' ๐ฉ๐ฎ๐น๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป! ๐ซ In ๐๐ฆ๐ต๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ช๐ข (๐) ๐๐ต๐ฅ. ๐ท๐ด. ๐๐ฏ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ช๐ข the Delhi High Court qอuอaอsอhอeอdอ อsอhอoอwอ อcอaอuอsอeอ อnอoอtอiอcอeอsอ อissued under Section 73 of the CGST Act dอeอmอaอnอdอiอnอgอ อIอGอSอTอ อoอnอ อtอhอeอ อsอeอcอoอnอdอmอeอnอtอ อoอfอ อeอmอpอlอoอyอeอeอsอ อbอyอ อoอvอeอrอsอeอaอsอ อpอaอrอeอnอtอ อcอoอmอpอaอnอiอeอsอ.อ อ๐๐ซ โก๏ธ The Revenue alleged that secondment agreements constituted import of services, triggering IGST under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM), along with interest and penalties. However, ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ผ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐ฟ๐ฐ๐๐น๐ฎ๐ฟ ๐ก๐ผ. ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ฌ/๐ฐ/๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฐ ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ฐ๐ต ๐๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ป๐ผ ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ผ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ, ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐น๐๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐ฑ '๐ก๐ถ๐น' ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐๐ฆ๐ง ๐ฟ๐๐น๐ฒ๐. ๐ก ๐ข๐๐๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐ฒ: The Court held that, due to the absence of invoicing, no tax liability arises, and thus, quashed the impugned notices. โ๏ธโ #DelhiHighCourt #GST #IGST
over 1 year ago
๐ฐ ๐๐๐ท๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ถ๐ด๐ต ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ ๐ฅ๐๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ด: ๐ฆ๐ต๐ผ๐-๐๐ฎ๐๐๐ฒ ๐ก๐ผ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐๐ป๐๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐ฑ ๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ผ ๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ด๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ ๐ถ๐ป ๐๐ฆ๐ง ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ด๐ถ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ๐น๐น๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป
over 1 year ago
๐ฐ ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ถ๐ด๐ต ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ ๐ฅ๐๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ด: ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐น๐ฎ๐ถ๐บ ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ถ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ฆ๐๐ฝ๐ฝ๐น๐ถ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐ฎ๐ถ๐น๐ ๐๐ผ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ ๐ง๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ป๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐
over 1 year ago
๐๐๐ฆ๐ง๐๐ง ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ป๐ป๐ฎ๐ถ ๐ฅ๐๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ถ๐พ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ฎ๐บ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐ธ ๐๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ฒ ๐๐ป๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ต๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ข The Tribunal held: "Encashment of performance/bank guarantees and amounts retained as liquidated damages are not a consideration for the provision of any service and thus are not subject to service tax."
over 1 year ago
๐๐๐ฆ๐ง๐๐ง ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ๐ถ๐ด๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ต ๐ฅ๐๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ณ๐๐ป๐ฑ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐๐ก๐ฉ๐๐ง ๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ ๐ข The Tribunal held: "Registration of premises is not a pre-condition for refund of unutilized CENVAT credit, and rejection of refund on the grounds of incomplete invoices or lack of nexus is unjustified."
over 1 year ago
๐๐๐ฆ๐ง๐๐ง ๐ก๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐น๐ต๐ถ ๐ฅ๐๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ถ๐บ๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ถ๐ป ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐ง๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ ๐ข The Tribunal held: "In the absence of a finding that suppression of facts was with intent to evade tax, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked."
over 1 year ago
๐๐๐ฆ๐ง๐๐ง ๐๐ผ๐น๐ธ๐ฎ๐๐ฎ ๐ฅ๐๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ฑ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ด๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ ๐ข The Tribunal held: "Service tax paid by advertisers on behalf of the appellant is treated as tax paid by the appellant, making any further demand unsustainable. However, the appellant must pay service tax on services provided to the Government."
over 1 year ago
๐ฐ ๐๐ฎ๐น๐ฐ๐๐๐๐ฎ ๐๐ถ๐ด๐ต ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ ๐ฅ๐๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ด: ๐๐๐ฆ๐ง ๐ก๐ผ๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ฝ๐น๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฑ ๐๐ผ๐ฎ๐ป
over 1 year ago
๐ฐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น๐ฎ ๐๐ถ๐ด๐ต ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ ๐ฅ๐๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ด: ๐ช๐ฟ๐ถ๐ ๐ฃ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ถ๐๐บ๐ถ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ง๐ถ๐บ๐ฒ๐น๐ ๐๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ฆ๐ง ๐๐ถ๐๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฐ๐
over 1 year ago
๐ฐ ๐ ๐ฒ๐ด๐ต๐ฎ๐น๐ฎ๐๐ฎ ๐๐ถ๐ด๐ต ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ ๐ฅ๐๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ด: ๐๐๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ต๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐๐๐ฒ๐๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐๐ฆ๐ง ๐ง๐ฎ๐ ๐ข๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฏ๐ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ป๐ฒ๐ฟ'๐ ๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฒ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ฝ
over 1 year ago