Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
The AAAR dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the original ruling. The Authority determined it lacked jurisdiction to decide on taxability under Finance Act, 1994 (service tax), as the appellant sought ruling on pre-GST TDR transactions. The AAAR also declined to consider new grounds introduced in appeal that weren't raised before the original authority, citing precedent from Commissioner of Cust & C Ex, Goa vs Dempo Engineering Works Ltd. The ruling confirmed that transfer of development rights constitutes receipt of consideration by the developer, and GST liability arises at the time of transfer of possession or rights in the constructed property, not when development rights are received. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.
The AAAR dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the original ruling. The Authority determined it lacked jurisdiction to decide on taxability under Finance Act, 1994 (service tax), as the appellant sought ruling on pre-GST TDR transactions. The AAAR also declined to consider new grounds introduced in appeal that weren't raised before the original authority, citing precedent from Commissioner of Cust & C Ex, Goa vs Dempo Engineering Works Ltd. The ruling confirmed that transfer of development rights constitutes receipt of consideration by the developer, and GST liability arises at the time of transfer of possession or rights in the constructed property, not when development rights are received. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.