Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 4823 
Join Channel 
