Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 of 96556 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 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
