<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (4) TMI 548 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768634</link>
    <description>Compensation paid for compulsory acquisition of land, including the solatium component, is not exigible to GST because it is part of acquisition compensation and not consideration for a taxable service. The Court held that Schedule II entry 5(e) applies only where there is an independent contractual obligation to do, refrain from, or tolerate an act for consideration, which was absent here. It also treated transfer of land as outside GST under Schedule III, so merely labelling part of the compensation as solatium does not create tax liability. On that basis, the GST notices and orders issued on the solatium component were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=813223" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 548 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768634</link>
      <description>Compensation paid for compulsory acquisition of land, including the solatium component, is not exigible to GST because it is part of acquisition compensation and not consideration for a taxable service. The Court held that Schedule II entry 5(e) applies only where there is an independent contractual obligation to do, refrain from, or tolerate an act for consideration, which was absent here. It also treated transfer of land as outside GST under Schedule III, so merely labelling part of the compensation as solatium does not create tax liability. On that basis, the GST notices and orders issued on the solatium component were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768634</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>