The High Court held that salaries paid to foreign employees are excluded from GST under Schedule III as they arise from an employer-employee relationship. The IGST demand, interest, and penalty were quashed.
The Court held that pendency of a Supreme Court challenge on fish meal GST does not waive the mandatory 10% pre-deposit for appeal. The petitioner must comply before the appeal is entertained.
The High Court held that courts must intimate the Income Tax Department when suits involve cash transactions exceeding Rs.2 lakh. However, it ruled that a plaintiff cannot be compelled to disclose his PAN number to defendants.
The High Court set aside a tax demand arising from foreign tax credit mismatch because no valid intimation under Section 143(1) was produced or served. It held that recovery cannot be enforced without mandatory service of notice of demand.
The Tribunal held that year of acquisition is determined by payment and handing over of possession under Section 2(47)(v), not by later registration date. Earlier CII was allowed for capital gains computation.
The Tribunal held that examining the donor’s creditworthiness and seeking income-tax returns at the registration stage is beyond the scope of section 12AB. Registration cannot be denied on such grounds when charitable objects and activities are genuine.
The CCI held that restricting warranty services in India to products bought from authorised distributors was unfair and discriminatory. The policy was found to limit consumer choice and deny market access to parallel importers, leading to a ₹27.38 crore penalty.
The High Court held that orders can be served through the notified GST common portal under Section 169. The challenge to portal-based communication was rejected.
The High Court held that Rule 86A merely creates a lien to secure revenue interests and does not amount to recovery of tax. Blocking of ITC was upheld where authorities recorded reasons to believe fraudulent or ineligible availment.
The High Court held that international roaming services are supplied to foreign telecom operators who pay consideration, not to individual subscribers. Since the recipient is located outside India, the services qualify as export, making the refund admissible.
