Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
The HC quashed the impugned adjudication order and related summary order demanding GST payment from the petitioner under an unregistered Joint Development Agreement (JDA). The Court held that the JDA did not effectuate any transfer or assignment of rights by the petitioner to the developer. Since the developer, a registered person, had already discharged the entire GST liability for 100% of the property, including the petitioner's 30% share, the issue of double taxation did not arise. The respondent was estopped from contradicting the prior acceptance by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes that the developer was liable to pay GST under the JDA. Consequently, the demand for GST from the petitioner was unjustified, and the petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned orders.
The HC quashed the impugned adjudication order and related summary order demanding GST payment from the petitioner under an unregistered Joint Development Agreement (JDA). The Court held that the JDA did not effectuate any transfer or assignment of rights by the petitioner to the developer. Since the developer, a registered person, had already discharged the entire GST liability for 100% of the property, including the petitioner's 30% share, the issue of double taxation did not arise. The respondent was estopped from contradicting the prior acceptance by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes that the developer was liable to pay GST under the JDA. Consequently, the demand for GST from the petitioner was unjustified, and the petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
