The Court held that the amendment to Rule 89(5) is clarificatory and applies retrospectively to earlier refund claims. Refund denial was set aside as authorities failed to consider binding legal developments.
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal due to unexplained delay, leaving the High Court ruling intact. The decision confirms that depreciation is allowable where leased assets are used in business.
The court held that leased assets qualify for depreciation since they are used in the course of business. It clarified that physical use by the assessee is not required if leasing generates business income.
The dispute involved jurisdiction of customs authorities to levy IGST on imports. The Court ruled that assessment includes all applicable taxes, rejecting the jurisdiction challenge.
The authority held that arranging transport for employees is a welfare activity, not a business supply. Nominal recovery from employees does not attract GST.
The issue concerned GST liability on electricity supplied through a solar power plant. The AAR held that electrical energy is exempt from GST and no registration is required when only exempt goods are supplied.
The issue involved classification of a fan drive assembly used in vehicle cooling systems. The AAR held that the product operates on viscous fluid principles and qualifies as a fluid coupling under HSN 8483.
The issue was whether taxpayers could choose between concessional and standard GST rates. The AAR held that once classified as outdoor catering, the 5% rate without ITC is mandatory.
The appellate authority found that facts presented on appeal differed from the original application. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication due to inconsistency in submissions.
The court held that a show cause notice lacking clear reasons and supporting documents violates natural justice. It quashed the retrospective cancellation, allowing fresh proceedings as per law.
