The authority held that corporate food aggregation involving logistics and quality control is a composite supply of services, not goods. As a result, GST at 18% applies under the residual service entry, while ITC is allowed.
The authority disposed of the application after the applicant sought withdrawal citing a temporary halt in the proposed expansion project. No ruling was given on ITC eligibility as the matter was not examined on merits.
The Authority held that classification under HSN and GST rate cannot be determined without precise details of goods or services. In the absence of such information, no ruling on classification was possible.
The ITAT held that reassessment is invalid where no addition is made on the sole ground for reopening, leading to the proceedings being quashed.
The appellate authority sent the matter back for re-investigation after the developer claimed that a higher benefit than alleged profiteering was already passed to buyers. The key takeaway is that factual verification of claimed price reductions is essential before confirming profiteering.
The Supreme Court confirmed that reassessment powers under Section 148 cannot be used to bypass the statutory scheme for search cases. The decision clarifies the distinct operating fields of Sections 153C and 148.
The Court held that reassessment based solely on material seized in a third-party search must proceed under Section 153C, not Section 148. Notices issued under the general reassessment provision were set aside.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s direction to process Section 10(46) applications. The ruling affirms that existing approval under Section 10(23C) is not an absolute bar.
The High Court held that statutory bodies can surrender approval under one exemption provision and seek notification under another. Authorities were directed to process applications under Section 10(46).
The High Court held that failure to pass a reasoned final order on an informant’s reward violates the 2007 Guidelines and directed the competent committee to reconsider the claim after hearing the informant.
