https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755154 Subsequent documentary material showing that GST liability under reverse charge had already been discharged justified reconsideration of the assessment on fresh facts. The appellate authority had only addressed the limited question of whether penalty fell under section 74 rather than section 73 of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017, without examining the taxpayer's other grounds. The Calcutta High Court treated the later declaration as material unavailable earlier and directed fresh adjudication. It also clarified that an Advance Ruling from Goa was not binding on a taxpayer registered in West Bengal and could not be applied automatically to the dispute. en-us Tue, 25 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 May 2025 18:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755154 Subsequent documentary material showing that GST liability under reverse charge had already been discharged justified reconsideration of the assessment on fresh facts. The appellate authority had only addressed the limited question of whether penalty fell under section 74 rather than section 73 of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017, without examining the taxpayer's other grounds. The Calcutta High Court treated the later declaration as material unavailable earlier and directed fresh adjudication. It also clarified that an Advance Ruling from Goa was not binding on a taxpayer registered in West Bengal and could not be applied automatically to the dispute. Case-Laws GST Tue, 25 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755154