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 petitioner's products were previously classified under heading 7615 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, but the Department contended that some products should be classified under heading 7607. The High Court had earlier allowed the petitioner's writ petitions challenging a similar order, following the Supreme Court's order in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Hindalco Industries Limited, holding that the Aluminium Foil Container is classifiable under 7615 with 12% GST. Consequently, the High Court allowed the present writ petitions and directed the refund of the pre-deposited amount by the petitioner within 30 days, as the order was accepted by the Commissioner GST Central Excise, Madurai.
The petitioner's products were previously classified under heading 7615 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, but the Department contended that some products should be classified under heading 7607. The High Court had earlier allowed the petitioner's writ petitions challenging a similar order, following the Supreme Court's order in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Hindalco Industries Limited, holding that the Aluminium Foil Container is classifiable under 7615 with 12% GST. Consequently, the High Court allowed the present writ petitions and directed the refund of the pre-deposited amount by the petitioner within 30 days, as the order was accepted by the Commissioner GST Central Excise, Madurai.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
