https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758435 The Madras HC partly allowed the writ petition challenging a GST demand confirmation. The court dropped demands in paragraphs 15(g) and 15(h) of the impugned order, following the SC precedent in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., which held that separate levy on service aspects violates composite supply principles under CGST Act Sections 2(30) and 8. However, demands relating to Input Tax Credit mismatch and Factory License renewal charges were upheld, with the petitioner granted liberty to file statutory appeal before the Commissioner of GST Central Excise (Appeals). en-us Wed, 29 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 May 2025 23:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758435 The Madras HC partly allowed the writ petition challenging a GST demand confirmation. The court dropped demands in paragraphs 15(g) and 15(h) of the impugned order, following the SC precedent in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., which held that separate levy on service aspects violates composite supply principles under CGST Act Sections 2(30) and 8. However, demands relating to Input Tax Credit mismatch and Factory License renewal charges were upheld, with the petitioner granted liberty to file statutory appeal before the Commissioner of GST Central Excise (Appeals). Case-Laws GST Wed, 29 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758435