Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
HC ruled on GST rate applicability for works contract services. The retrospective reduction of GST rate from 18% to 12% recommended by GST Council on 5th August, 2017 was not legally binding until formal notification on 21st September, 2017. The court held that the original GST rate of 18% prescribed in the 8th July, 2017 notification remained valid for tenders submitted before the final notification date. The GST Council's recommendation alone cannot be construed as a statutory rate change, particularly considering constitutional provisions. Consequently, the petitioner's claim for retrospective rate reduction was rejected, and the petition was dismissed.
HC ruled on GST rate applicability for works contract services. The retrospective reduction of GST rate from 18% to 12% recommended by GST Council on 5th August, 2017 was not legally binding until formal notification on 21st September, 2017. The court held that the original GST rate of 18% prescribed in the 8th July, 2017 notification remained valid for tenders submitted before the final notification date. The GST Council's recommendation alone cannot be construed as a statutory rate change, particularly considering constitutional provisions. Consequently, the petitioner's claim for retrospective rate reduction was rejected, and the petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.