Infrastructure facility: energy-efficient public lighting held integral to road projects, qualifying the operator as a developer and eligible for dedu...
Fourth Proviso to Section 153A: extended-period inquiry requires a reasonable, material-based satisfaction that escaped income likely exceeds the thre...
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 4811 
Join Channel 
