Courts ruled that telecom towers remain movable goods because they can be dismantled and relocated, even when bolted to concrete foundations. The decision preserves GST input tax credit eligibility for telecom infrastructure.
The CCI observed that there was no evidence that medicines or consumables were sold above manufacturer-fixed MRPs. The Commission held that profit margins alone were insufficient to establish abuse of dominance.
The Tribunal ruled that once an assessee validly opts for the DCF method and submits a qualified valuation report, the Assessing Officer cannot switch to the NAV method. The decision reinforces the statutory valuation options available under Rule 11UA.
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA held that routing demonetized cash through another person’s bank account constituted a benami transaction under the PBPT Act. The Tribunal ruled that cash qualifies as “property” and attachment could continue to the extent of the remaining benefit retained.
The Bombay High Court held that transportation services in CIF imports form part of a composite supply and cannot be taxed separately under GST. The Court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Mohit Minerals to quash the demand.
GSTAT held that failure to pass on additional Input Tax Credit benefits to eligible homebuyers violated Section 171 of the CGST Act. The Tribunal ordered refund of profiteered amounts with GST, interest and penalty.
The Competition Commission of India held that allegations of excessive pricing for room rent, medical tests, medicines, and consumables were not supported by sufficient evidence.
The ROC used the residuary penalty provision under Section 450 to address procedural contraventions involving premature allotment and inaccurate PAS-3 disclosures. The ruling clarifies the scope of Section 450 in filling legislative gaps.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that GST officers of a transit State cannot invoke Sections 129 or 130 against goods merely passing through the State. The ruling clarifies that IGST transactions unrelated to the State do not confer detention or confiscation powers.
Gujarat High Court held that GST paid on cotton seed oil cake must be refunded since the product is exempt as cattle feed under Notification No. 02/2017-CT (Rate). The ruling clarifies that exemption depends on end use as cattle feed, not the supply route or purchaser category.
