Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
