Composite GST notices, mandatory limitation, and same-subject bar: HC upheld valid notices but quashed overlapping proceedings and unauthorised withho...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3761 to 3780 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The AAR held that the Applicant is not entitled to input tax credit for GST paid on fire-fighting systems and public-health equipment installed as part of a new factory. The installations were characterized as permanently affixed to immovable property and thus not "plant and machinery," bringing the supply within the embargoes of s.17(5)(c) and, alternatively, s.17(5)(d) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017; GST attributable to the composite works contract is therefore non-creditable. Because ITC denial on the specific contract is dispositive, the AAR declined to adjudicate the ancillary question on the timing for availing ITC against supplier "advance component" invoices.
The AAR held that the Applicant is not entitled to input tax credit for GST paid on fire-fighting systems and public-health equipment installed as part of a new factory. The installations were characterized as permanently affixed to immovable property and thus not "plant and machinery," bringing the supply within the embargoes of s.17(5)(c) and, alternatively, s.17(5)(d) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017; GST attributable to the composite works contract is therefore non-creditable. Because ITC denial on the specific contract is dispositive, the AAR declined to adjudicate the ancillary question on the timing for availing ITC against supplier "advance component" invoices.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
