The High Court set aside a GST notice covering four tax periods in one proceeding. It held that Section 73 requires year-wise notices with separate limitation for each assessment year.
The High Court held that issuing a single GST show cause notice for more than one financial year is impermissible. Each financial year is a separate unit with its own limitation period.
The issue before the Authority was the classification of evaporators and condensers. It held that heat exchangers imported separately are classifiable as parts, but follow the main unit’s classification when imported together in CKD/SKD condition.
The CAAR Delhi examined whether annuloplasty rings qualify as artificial body parts. It ruled that since the device only supports an existing heart valve annulus and does not replace anatomy, classification lies under the residual medical implant category.
The High Court closed the writ petition after noting that the GST Appellate Tribunal had been constituted, directing the taxpayer to pursue the statutory appeal without limitation objections.
The Kerala AAR held that while ITC on purchase of used vehicles is barred under the margin scheme, credit on repairs, refurbishment, and other business expenses remains admissible.
The ruling examined whether GST applies to centage charges collected for PMC services rendered to Government and local authorities. It held that such consultancy services qualify as pure services linked to constitutional functions and are exempt from GST, subject to conditions.
The Authority held that treatment of psoriasis, dermatitis, fungal infections, and similar conditions constitutes healthcare services by a clinical establishment and is exempt from GST under the relevant notification.
The competition regulator dismissed allegations that restrictive turnover criteria in a hospital tender violated competition law. It held that procurement terms aligned with policy guidelines do not, by themselves, establish anti-competitive conduct.
The court held that reopening beyond the permissible period was invalid where full disclosures were made and no new material emerged. Reassessment based solely on existing records was ruled time-barred.
