Timing mismatch in income recognition requires verification whether receipts were already taxed in an earlier year; matter remitted for fresh examinat...
FOB transaction value and export incentives: customs valuation cannot override contractual export benefits or support confiscation without valid proof...
The HC held that Circular No. 163/19/2021-GST did not compel retrospective application of the explanation added to Sl. No. 234 of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate); any pre-01.01.2019 benefit was only optional, so the assessment was unsustainable to the extent it treated that explanation as mandatorily retrospective. It also found the authority had failed to determine the true nature of the supplies, namely whether they resulted in immovable property as works contract or constituted installation of movable goods under composite supply, and had not identified the turnover relatable to the period before 01.01.2019. The assessment was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration, leaving open the vires question.
The HC held that Circular No. 163/19/2021-GST did not compel retrospective application of the explanation added to Sl. No. 234 of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate); any pre-01.01.2019 benefit was only optional, so the assessment was unsustainable to the extent it treated that explanation as mandatorily retrospective. It also found the authority had failed to determine the true nature of the supplies, namely whether they resulted in immovable property as works contract or constituted installation of movable goods under composite supply, and had not identified the turnover relatable to the period before 01.01.2019. The assessment was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration, leaving open the vires question.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
