The Court dismissed the plea seeking declaration that statutory university functions are not taxable under GST. It held the issue is already covered by prior decisions and allowed authorities to proceed as per law.
The Tribunal held that mere reliance on an Investigation Wing report without linking the assessee to price manipulation cannot justify treating LTCG as bogus. Documentary evidence and banking transactions supported genuineness.
The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) does not apply in reassessment where no advance tax liability existed, setting aside dismissal of appeal and restoring it for decision on merits.
The Court held that affiliation and inspection services do not qualify as “education” under Section 66D(l)(ii) and are taxable. The writ was dismissed for delay and lack of exemption eligibility.
The Bombay High Court quashed Question No.73 of Circular 21/2020, holding that prosecution unrelated to tax arrear cannot bar settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The ruling clarifies that exclusion applies only to tax arrears linked to prosecution.
The Madras High Court held that university affiliation, inspection, and related fees are not covered under GST exemption for services relating to admission or examination. The ruling clarifies that affiliation is a distinct taxable activity.
The Telangana High Court quashed rejection remarks under the 2024 scheme, holding that the order was too cryptic and lacked reasons. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration after personal hearing.
The Authority held that aquaculture cannot be equated with agriculture and rejected classification under HSN 8436. Paddle Wheel Aerators were classified under residual HSN 8479, attracting 18% GST.
The Gujarat AAR held that mobilisation advance adjusted against running account bills constitutes consideration under Section 2(31) of the CGST Act. As it is applied toward works contract services, GST becomes payable. The ruling clarifies that such advances cannot be treated as mere loans to avoid tax liability.
Gujarat AAR held that ice cream manufactured outside retail outlets and sold over the counter qualifies as supply of goods, not restaurant service. Classification depends on manner of supply.
