HC set aside order passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal remanding the matter to the Assessing officer. Held that, the Tribunal was incorrect in remanding back the matter, when all the material was before it thus, it should have dealt with each of the material and decided the same.
HC held that SCN and order for cancellation of GST Registration is not sustainable on the grounds that the order was passed without any personal hearing and thus, cryptic in nature. Further directed the Revenue Department to restore the GST registration of assessee.
AAR ruled that Royalty amount is includable while arriving at the transaction value for payment of applicable GST on the supply of services rendered by the assessee to the main contractor under Section 15 of CGST Act and 18% GST is applicable on Royalty amount under RCM.
AAR ruled that no GST will be chargeable on the hiring of a transportation vehicle by a Goods Transportation Agency (GTA) and also has no liability under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM).
AAR ruled that the Notification amending the tax rate from 18% to 12% on Composite Supply of Works Contract can only be applied prospectively, if an enactment does not expressly provides that it should be deemed to have come into effect form a past date.
HC held that SCN that does not contain reason to justify cancellation of registration therefore, is violative of principles of natural justice and needs to be quashed.
HC held that dealers cannot be compelled to carry forward ITC from extant regime to the Goods and Services Tax regime if the dealer chooses to avail refund instead.
HC held that mere selling of batteries by piece instead by weight does not make seller liable to be penalised under CGST Act, 2017
HC held that the amount deposited during search proceedings without an acknowledgement of acceptance issued in Form GST DRC-04 as mandated under Rule 142 of CGST Rules is involuntary thus, directed to be refunded.
HC held that the Assessees are not to be dragged to the Court when in fact there is nothing for the Court to adjudicate except pointing out to the limitation of the software of the Revenue Department, in a matter challenging the non-issuance of the refund. Further held that, refund claim should not be rejected due to the deficiency of GSTN and thus allowed the refund claim of IGST with interest at the rate of 6 percent.
