Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2025 (9) TMI 1384

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....engaged in the business of renting out equipment and machinery as well as in the business of works contract. In the normal course of business, the petitioner had rented out a machinery by the name of 'Earth Excavator' to one firm M/s Kaluwala Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and the said machinery was being used by M/s Kaluwala Constructions Pvt. Ltd. for his work contract for which M/s Kaluwala Constructions Pvt. Ltd. was paying rent to the petitioner. Further, as M/s Kaluwala Constructions Pvt. Ltd. was paying rent to the petitioner, the petitioner was raising invoices and was paying tax, and also filed returns in Form GSTR-01. 4. On 25.04.2025, while the said machine was being returned to the petitioner from the work place of M/s Kaluw....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ower Limited Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others) and Writ Tax No. 1384 of 2022 (M/S D and D Construction and Developers Company Vs. Additional Commissioner and 2 others). 8. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders, and has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Writ Tax No.57 of 2021 (M/s Famus India Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). 9. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record. 10. It is not in dispute that the goods in question, being an old excavator which belongs to the petitioner, was coming back to its office after being used by one M/s Kaluwala Constructions in turn of rent to be paid to the petitioner. 11. The record shows that M/s Kaluwala Constructions h....