Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Challenge concerns taxability of ocean freight under the IGST reverse charge mechanism and rejection of a rectification application. The court found the Proper Officer erred in treating a Supreme Court decision as prospective where constitutional precedent requires judgments to operate retrospectively unless expressly prospective, and concluded the SC ruling that Notification 10/2017 is clarificatory (not altering the taxable person under reverse charge) governs earlier import transactions; therefore the impugned confirmation of IGST demand and the March 25, 2025 rejection of rectification could not be sustained and the rectification application was allowed.
Challenge concerns taxability of ocean freight under the IGST reverse charge mechanism and rejection of a rectification application. The court found the Proper Officer erred in treating a Supreme Court decision as prospective where constitutional precedent requires judgments to operate retrospectively unless expressly prospective, and concluded the SC ruling that Notification 10/2017 is clarificatory (not altering the taxable person under reverse charge) governs earlier import transactions; therefore the impugned confirmation of IGST demand and the March 25, 2025 rejection of rectification could not be sustained and the rectification application was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.