The Court set aside a GST demand that exceeded the amount proposed in the show-cause notice. The ruling reinforces the statutory cap under Section 75(7) on confirmed demands.
The Court held that petition, ARR processing, and licence fees collected while performing statutory regulatory functions do not constitute taxable supply under GST, leading to quashing of the show cause notice.
The Court will examine whether corporate guarantees issued by a parent company to its subsidiaries amount to a taxable supply under GST, while granting interim protection against coercive action.
The appellate tribunal held that substituting the investigating agency did not amount to a review or recall. Since the original investigation order remained intact, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that a direct appellate challenge to the final removal order was not maintainable. The appeal was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ against the removal order.
The High Court held that a GST adjudication order cannot be based on grounds not mentioned in the show cause notice. Both adjudication and appellate orders were set aside for violating Section 75(7).
The Court ruled that recovery of tax without supplying the assessment order lacks authority of law. Refund with interest was directed unless the order is traced and served by a specified date.
The Tribunal held that Section 87A rebate applies to STCG and LTCG taxed under Sections 111A and 112 when income is within ₹7 lakh. The denial based on system logic and future amendments was rejected.
The advance ruling held that window glass used exclusively in display assemblies is not classifiable as safety glass. Its functional integration with display modules determines classification under electronic parts.
The authority refused to issue an advance ruling after finding that the same issue was already under investigation by customs officers. The ruling reiterates that pending investigations bar maintainability under Section 28-I.
