Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1481 to 1500 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that exemption under Notification No. 2/2017 did not apply to the petitioner's supply of frozen meat, because the Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling and the appellate authority had already determined that the goods were supplied in unit containers and attracted GST at five per cent. Those advance rulings were binding on the petitioner under Section 103 of the CGST Act, so it was required to pay the tax accordingly. As the respondents rejected reimbursement only on the mistaken assumption that the supplies were exempt, there was no legal basis to deny reimbursement of the GST already paid. The petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of the balance GST amount, with interest payable on default.
The HC held that exemption under Notification No. 2/2017 did not apply to the petitioner's supply of frozen meat, because the Rajasthan Authority for Advance Ruling and the appellate authority had already determined that the goods were supplied in unit containers and attracted GST at five per cent. Those advance rulings were binding on the petitioner under Section 103 of the CGST Act, so it was required to pay the tax accordingly. As the respondents rejected reimbursement only on the mistaken assumption that the supplies were exempt, there was no legal basis to deny reimbursement of the GST already paid. The petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of the balance GST amount, with interest payable on default.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.