Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
HC determined that the respondent authority misconstrued the GST notification's applicability. The court held that paragraph 3(iv) of the notification applies exclusively to pre-GST contracts and cannot be used to deny reimbursement for contracts executed after July 1, 2017, which are governed by paragraph 4. The HC directed the public works department secretary to revisit the petitioner's claim regarding GST payment against gross bills from July 1, 2017 to March 31, 2019, in accordance with GST law, effectively remanding the matter for reconsideration and potential reimbursement.
HC determined that the respondent authority misconstrued the GST notification's applicability. The court held that paragraph 3(iv) of the notification applies exclusively to pre-GST contracts and cannot be used to deny reimbursement for contracts executed after July 1, 2017, which are governed by paragraph 4. The HC directed the public works department secretary to revisit the petitioner's claim regarding GST payment against gross bills from July 1, 2017 to March 31, 2019, in accordance with GST law, effectively remanding the matter for reconsideration and potential reimbursement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
