Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The petitioner's tax liability for the period 01.04.2021 to 01.01.2022 was in question. The court examined whether the respondent entity qualified as a government entity and whether the works executed by the petitioner met any of the conditions for concessional tax rate under N/N. 24/2017. The court held that the works aimed to create infrastructure for entrepreneurs and manufacturing units, and the respondent entity, though a government entity, conducted business by developing industrial parks and recovering costs from entrepreneurs. Therefore, none of the conditions for concessional rate applied, and the tax assessment at 18% by the respondent for the said period was upheld. The arrangement between the petitioner and respondent entity was that the latter would pay the tax due to the petitioner, who would then remit it to the GST Department. The HC disposed of the writ petition, affirming the impugned order for the tax period 01.04.2021 to 30.11.2022.
The petitioner's tax liability for the period 01.04.2021 to 01.01.2022 was in question. The court examined whether the respondent entity qualified as a government entity and whether the works executed by the petitioner met any of the conditions for concessional tax rate under N/N. 24/2017. The court held that the works aimed to create infrastructure for entrepreneurs and manufacturing units, and the respondent entity, though a government entity, conducted business by developing industrial parks and recovering costs from entrepreneurs. Therefore, none of the conditions for concessional rate applied, and the tax assessment at 18% by the respondent for the said period was upheld. The arrangement between the petitioner and respondent entity was that the latter would pay the tax due to the petitioner, who would then remit it to the GST Department. The HC disposed of the writ petition, affirming the impugned order for the tax period 01.04.2021 to 30.11.2022.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
