Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The HC ruled that collection of cess by respondent authorities under the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972 post-GST implementation was unconstitutional and ultra vires to the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and AGST Act, 2017. Following the precedent established in M/s. Bhatter Traders, which involved pari materia issues, the Court disposed of the writ petition in favor of the petitioner. The judgment effectively invalidates the respondent authorities' power to levy and collect such cess in the GST regime, rendering their actions unlawful and establishing grounds for the petitioner's refund claim.
The HC ruled that collection of cess by respondent authorities under the Assam Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1972 post-GST implementation was unconstitutional and ultra vires to the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and AGST Act, 2017. Following the precedent established in M/s. Bhatter Traders, which involved pari materia issues, the Court disposed of the writ petition in favor of the petitioner. The judgment effectively invalidates the respondent authorities' power to levy and collect such cess in the GST regime, rendering their actions unlawful and establishing grounds for the petitioner's refund claim.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.