Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the demand confirmed under the GST enactments on the basis of FORM 26AS could be sustained where the underlying transaction related to sale of immovable property, and whether the impugned orders were liable to be quashed and remitted for fresh consideration.
Analysis: The impugned order proceeded on the footing that the petitioner had not produced the sale deeds, but the materials placed before the Court, including the sale deed and the corresponding FORM 26AS, prima facie indicated that the transaction was a sale of immovable property. Such a transaction falls outside the levy of tax under the GST enactments. Since the assessment had been made without adequately appreciating the nature of the transaction, the matter required reconsideration on merits after due notice to the petitioner.
Conclusion: The impugned orders were quashed and the matters were remitted to the respondent for passing fresh orders on merits after giving due notice to the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded to the extent of obtaining setting aside of the impugned orders and a fresh adjudication, while the tax liability issue was left open for reconsideration by the authority.
Ratio Decidendi: A demand under GST cannot be sustained where the transaction, on the materials placed before the Court, is prima facie a sale of immovable property, and such a matter must be reassessed on merits after due notice.