Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
The High Court examined a challenge against a notification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, questioning its validity u/s 168(A) of the CGST Act, 2017 due to lack of GST Council recommendation. The court found the notification prima facie inconsistent with the law, indicating potential failure of actions based on it. An assessment of force majeure applicability in light of GST Council meeting minutes was deemed necessary, with authorities given a chance to present their stance and evidence. Pending further notice, petitioners were granted interim protection against coercive measures based on the contested assessment order. Respondents were instructed to submit affidavits by a specified date for further proceedings.
The High Court examined a challenge against a notification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, questioning its validity u/s 168(A) of the CGST Act, 2017 due to lack of GST Council recommendation. The court found the notification prima facie inconsistent with the law, indicating potential failure of actions based on it. An assessment of force majeure applicability in light of GST Council meeting minutes was deemed necessary, with authorities given a chance to present their stance and evidence. Pending further notice, petitioners were granted interim protection against coercive measures based on the contested assessment order. Respondents were instructed to submit affidavits by a specified date for further proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.