Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
The AAR ruled that goods supplied by the applicant, despite being a victim of fraud without receiving consideration, still constituted a "supply" under GST law. The authority determined that while fraud may vitiate a contract, it does not negate the statutory definition of "supply" under section 7 of the CGST Act. The facts established that goods were physically removed and received at the destination, as confirmed by the FIR. The AAR concluded that the transaction qualified as supply of goods under section 20 of the IGST Act read with sections 12 and 7 of the CGST Act, regardless of the fraudulent nature of the order.
The AAR ruled that goods supplied by the applicant, despite being a victim of fraud without receiving consideration, still constituted a "supply" under GST law. The authority determined that while fraud may vitiate a contract, it does not negate the statutory definition of "supply" under section 7 of the CGST Act. The facts established that goods were physically removed and received at the destination, as confirmed by the FIR. The AAR concluded that the transaction qualified as supply of goods under section 20 of the IGST Act read with sections 12 and 7 of the CGST Act, regardless of the fraudulent nature of the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
