The Court held that interest and related receipts must be treated as business income, not income from other sources. The Tribunal’s order was upheld as no substantial question of law arose.
The Tribunal held that the denial of 12AB registration could not stand where the assessee was not given an effective chance to submit documents. The matter was remanded to ensure compliance with natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the trust’s exemption claim must be reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court’s AUDA judgment, which redefined rules for general public utility entities. The key issue is whether fee-based activities exceed the statutory limits under section 2(15).
The Court ruled that the assessment was invalid because it was passed without a personal hearing. The matter was remanded for reconsideration with directions for proper notice and hearing.
The Court held that further custody was unnecessary as allegations of fraudulent ITC were yet to be adjudicated and evidence was documentary. Bail was granted with conditions.
The Court held that the impugned GST notice and adjudication orders suffered from multiple legal defects and quashed them. Authorities can issue a fresh notice, with limitation suspended for the contested period.
The Authority held that suppliers of goods cannot issue tax invoices on advances because Notification No. 66/2017 prescribes mandatory timing of tax liability. The ruling clarifies that advances must be documented through receipt vouchers only.
The Authority held that the recipient, though government-controlled, is a registered society and not the Government. The ruling clarified that no exemption applies and ITC is fully available.
The Authority held that the applicant’s solid waste management activities fall under Entry 3B and are exempt from GST. It found CKCL to be a Governmental Authority receiving eligible services.
The ruling holds that interim payments made during the COVID-19 lockdown constitute consideration for manpower services. GST was deemed applicable because the workers were treated as “on duty” under the existing contract, leaving no scope for exemption.
