The issue was whether the High Court could interfere with an arbitral award upheld under Section 34. The Supreme Court held that Section 37 jurisdiction is limited and cannot re-examine merits or reinterpret the contract.
The issue was whether revision could be invoked for allowing LTCG exemption on sale of investments. The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer examined the claim, the order was not erroneous or prejudicial.
The tribunal examined whether gold jewellery seized during police interception could be taxed as unexplained solely based on a statement recorded under enquiry. It held that additions fail where later evidence shows the assessment relied on weak corroboration and inconsistent reasoning.
The High Court closed the writ petition after noting that the GST Appellate Tribunal had been constituted, directing the taxpayer to pursue the statutory appeal without limitation objections.
The Kerala AAR held that while ITC on purchase of used vehicles is barred under the margin scheme, credit on repairs, refurbishment, and other business expenses remains admissible.
The ruling examined whether GST applies to centage charges collected for PMC services rendered to Government and local authorities. It held that such consultancy services qualify as pure services linked to constitutional functions and are exempt from GST, subject to conditions.
The issue was whether revision under section 263 was valid for multiple expense claims. The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer had examined issues and adopted a plausible view, revision was unsustainable.
The Authority held that treatment of psoriasis, dermatitis, fungal infections, and similar conditions constitutes healthcare services by a clinical establishment and is exempt from GST under the relevant notification.
The competition regulator dismissed allegations that restrictive turnover criteria in a hospital tender violated competition law. It held that procurement terms aligned with policy guidelines do not, by themselves, establish anti-competitive conduct.
The case examined the correct tax rate for a trust formed exclusively for employees’ benefit. The Tribunal held that such trusts are taxable at normal AOP rates under section 164(1)(iv).
