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.
Bombay High Court held that issuance of summons under section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [CGST Act] for inquiry do not constitute illegal detention. Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that absolute confiscation as ordered is justifiable in view of import of Areca Nuts below Minimum Import Price condition. Accordingly, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution not warranted and hence writ petition stands dismissed.
Orissa High Court held that refund claimed in respect of tax paid erroneously or under mistaken notion cannot be denied solely on the ground of limitation stipulated in section 54 of the GST Act. Accordingly, refund of taxes deposited twice is allowed and order rejection refund is quashed.
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 High Court upheld Section 19(20) of the TN VAT Act, ruling that excess input tax credit must be reversed when goods are sold below invoice purchase price. It held ITC is a statutory concession and can be restricted to safeguard revenue.
The Court held that issuance of notice under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer is a jurisdictional defect. All consequential reassessment proceedings were set aside.
