The Gujarat AAR held that mobilisation advance adjusted against running account bills constitutes consideration under Section 2(31) of the CGST Act. As it is applied toward works contract services, GST becomes payable. The ruling clarifies that such advances cannot be treated as mere loans to avoid tax liability.
Gujarat AAR held that ice cream manufactured outside retail outlets and sold over the counter qualifies as supply of goods, not restaurant service. Classification depends on manner of supply.
The Gujarat AAR held that paan-based edible capsules containing supari but no lime, katha, or tobacco qualify as Betel nut product known as Supari under HSN 2106 90 30. All products were taxed at 5% GST under HSN 2106.
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.
SAFEMA Delhi held that non-tribal individual used tribal employee to Benami purchase land. Thus, the sale is violative of section 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code is absolutely barred under the law. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Sections 147/148 is invalid when the assessment year is the year of search. Such cases must proceed under normal assessment provisions.
The Tribunal held that revision under Section 263 is invalid where the Assessing Officer examined records and adopted a plausible view. Mere disagreement or desire for further enquiry is insufficient.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order after finding that the assessee’s conditional withdrawal of reopening grounds was not properly considered. The matter was directed for fresh adjudication to address legal and factual issues.
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.
The Tribunal held that exclusion of time for transfer of seized material applies only within the running limitation period. As the assessment was passed beyond the recalculated deadline, it was quashed as barred by limitation.
