The Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside a GST order involving alleged wrongful ITC availment of over ₹17.67 crore because the adjudicating authority failed to consider an audit report relied upon by the petitioner.
The dispute examines whether social commerce platforms must collect TCS under GST even when customer payments are handled directly by resellers. The case could redefine compliance obligations for decentralized e-commerce businesses.
ITAT Bangalore held that Section 45(5A) applies prospectively and cannot govern JDAs executed before 01.04.2018. Capital gains from older development agreements must be taxed under the law applicable in the year of transfer.
SEBI has proposed wide-ranging amendments to the Buy-Back Regulations, including revival of open market buy-backs and removal of mandatory Merchant Bankers. The reforms aim to simplify compliance while strengthening investor protection measures.
The authority ruled that the Air Separation Unit constituted an immovable manufacturing facility due to its permanence, scale, and structural integration. As a result, ITC was blocked under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act.
Tribunal held that capital goods do not lose eligibility for Cenvat credit after becoming part of an immovable plant fixed to earth. It ruled that admissibility depends on compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules, not on immovability of final structure.
The Tamil Nadu AAAR held that supply of food to corporate clients under contractual arrangements amounted to contract food service taxable at 18% GST. The authority ruled that menu planning, quality checks, delivery, and service obligations went beyond mere sale of food.
CAAR Mumbai refused to entertain an advance ruling application on roasted areca nuts after noting that the classification issue had already been decided by the Madras High Court. The Authority applied the statutory bar under Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs Act.
CAAR Mumbai rejected an advance ruling application after holding that the classification issue relating to roasted areca nuts had already been decided by the Madras High Court. The Authority applied the statutory bar under Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs Act.7
The Customs Authority for Advance Ruling held that the classification dispute concerning roasted betel and areca nuts had already been decided in earlier court proceedings. The applications were therefore rejected as barred by law.
