Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The AAR addressed entitlement to input tax credit on GST paid for a contractor-built breakwater and concluded ITC is disallowed because the supply was a works contract for construction of immovable property and does not meet the statutory exception for plant and machinery. The authority applied the statutory definition of plant and machinery rather than functionality tests from other statutes, found the works contract fell under the immovable-property exclusion, and held the applicant ineligible for ITC. The AAR declined to rule on supplier-centric rate-notification applicability because the ruling would bind the applicant but not the contractor.
The AAR addressed entitlement to input tax credit on GST paid for a contractor-built breakwater and concluded ITC is disallowed because the supply was a works contract for construction of immovable property and does not meet the statutory exception for plant and machinery. The authority applied the statutory definition of plant and machinery rather than functionality tests from other statutes, found the works contract fell under the immovable-property exclusion, and held the applicant ineligible for ITC. The AAR declined to rule on supplier-centric rate-notification applicability because the ruling would bind the applicant but not the contractor.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.