The Supreme Court of India held that parties cannot enforce rights in execution after abandoning earlier suits on the same issue. The key takeaway is that non-prosecution of prior claims can bar relief even if res judicata does not apply.
The Karnataka High Court held that property contributed as capital to a partnership becomes firm property. The individual or family rights cannot be claimed once ownership is transferred to the firm.
The court held that Section 74 cannot be invoked without alleging fraud or suppression. The key takeaway is that absence of jurisdictional facts invalidates GST proceedings.
The tribunal ruled that a claim submitted four days before the CoC meeting was ineligible for consideration. It confirmed that the RP acted correctly in rejecting claims filed beyond the permissible window.
The AAR held that Pooja Oil, though technically edible, is marketed as inedible and thus classified under heading 1518. Consequently, it attracts 5% GST under the revised notification.
The Authority held that nominal deductions from employee salaries for canteen services constitute consideration under GST law. As a result, such recoveries are taxable as supply.
The ruling holds that salary deductions for canteen and transport facilities constitute taxable supply due to consideration. It clarifies that even subsidized recoveries attract GST.
The ruling held that printing of books using content supplied by customers constitutes a service under GST. Such transactions are taxable at 18%, clarifying the importance of content ownership in classification.
The AAR held that recovery of even nominal charges from employees constitutes consideration, making transport services taxable. The exemption for contract carriage was denied as conditions were not met.
The AAR held that canteen and transport facilities provided to employees are incidental to business operations. Recoveries from employees are treated as taxable supplies under GST, confirming applicability on such transactions.
