The HC held that the dispute was substantially legal because...

The HC held that the dispute was substantially legal because there was no factual dispute about execution of the works. It gave binding effect under Section 103 to the appellate advance ruling that the recipient was not a local authority and that GST on the works contract services was payable at 18%. The later administrative order was found contradictory, arbitrary, and based on fallacious reasoning, and the objection that documents were not supplied was rejected because the material was already available with the authority. The impugned order was quashed, and the respondent was directed to release the balance 6% GST within four weeks.

---