We are a family of strong 800+ people including 470+ professionals working from 14 locations across India.
We have a rich heritage and enduring legacy which are pivotal in shaping trust, excellence, and unparalleled legal expertise, thus building a strong reputation and a trusted brand.
We started in 1985 in a single room set up by the two founders with no prior experience of working in a law firm. Both the founders had outstanding academic records and focused on their deep understanding of the law to form the foundation of the firm.
Integrity, Knowledge and Passion are the principles that resonate with every member of our LKS family and the work that we do. These values drive us to build a community of legally sound professionals and well-serviced clients.
Everything we have accomplished over the last four decades is a result of our unique way of thinking which is deeply influenced by our core values and principles that define us.
We and our professionals consistently garner appreciation for the quality of our services and the depth of our legal expertise. This consistent acknowledgment serves as a testament to our unwavering commitment to exceed expectations.
The article in this issue of Tax Amicus discusses the GST liability on arbitral awards. It notes that though the CBIC Circular No. 178/10/2022-GST, dated 3 August 2022 has paved the way in understanding the GST implications on arbitral awards, determination of the nature of the arbitral award, requires analysis of facts surrounding each case and the terms and conditions of the contract entered between the parties as the awarded amount may not necessarily be in the nature of a compensation. The authors in this regard also elaborate different propositions by providing illustrations. Further, observing that there is no direct mention or inference of the same in the Circular, the authors are of the view that such ambiguity may lead to various taxation disputes and therefore, the parties must methodologically review each award amount and decide on the tax implications…
Goods and Services Tax (GST)
Notifications and Circulars
GST Council’s 48th Meeting – Highlights
Ratio decidendi
Deposit of an amount during search operations when not voluntary – CBIC directed to align Instruction dated 25 May 2022 with directions of Gujarat HC in Bhumi Associate – Delhi High Court
Provisional attachment – Pendency of proceedings is sine qua non even after amendment to Section 83 from 1 January 2022 – Gujarat High Court
Release of non-relied upon seized documents/books is not mandatory within 6 months – Delhi High Court
Blocking use of credit ledger when is not permissible – Delhi High Court
Determination of tax liability under CGST Section 129(1) when not correct – Allahabad High Court
No GST on notice pay recovery – CBIC Circular No. 178/10/2022-GST applicable retrospectively – Kerala High Court
No detention and seizure of goods when e-way bill expires in transit – Gujarat High Court
Cancellation of registration not sustainable when SCN and order for cancellation not clear enough – Andhra Pradesh High Court
No GST on reimbursement of expenses borne by Director on behalf of company – Karnataka AAR
Input Tax Credit – ‘Plant and machinery’ not include pipeline which is 90% outside licensed area – Maharashtra AAR
EU VAT – Award of vouchers free of charge to employees is not supply of services for consideration – Court of Justice of the European Union
Customs
Notifications and Circulars
India-Australia FTA – Rules for economic cooperation and trade agreement notified
E-Commerce – Postal Export (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations notified
RoDTEP – Chemicals, pharmaceuticals and iron & steel items included in list of eligible items
Ratio decidendi
EPCG imports – Exemption from IGST and Compensation Cess is retrospective – Amendment by Notification 79/2017-Cus is clarificatory – Bombay High Court
Finished jewellery earlier exported can be imported in SEZ as raw material – Bombay High Court
Notification effective only from date of e-publication after digital signature certificate – Gujarat High Court
Valuation – Contemporaneous imports – Effect of exchange rate and time difference in imports – CESTAT Delhi
Valuation – Related person – Shareholder cannot be a partner in business – CESTAT Ahmedabad
DFIA – Immediate parent material is relevant to decide which input was used for export product – CESTAT Ahmedabad
Central Excise, Service Tax & VAT
Ratio decidendi
Rebate claim on exports – Limitation prescribed under Central Excise Section 11B applicable – Supreme Court
Oxygen merely a ‘refining agent’ and not a ‘raw material’ in manufacture of steel – Supreme Court
Admissibility of Cenvat credit cannot be adjudicated by invoking Section 73 of CGST Act – Jharkhand High Court
Sabka Vishwas (LDR) Scheme – Challenge to rejection of benefit under the scheme valid even after expiry of scheme – Madras High Court
Sabka Vishwas (LDR) Scheme – Issuance of SCN after 30 June 2019 not material when duty quantified earlier – Bombay High Court
Refund of Cenvat credit on exports – Debit in Cenvat credit account, though during GST regime, is sufficient compliance – CESTAT Delhi
