The Court held that interim protection applies where only a DRC-01 summary was issued and the core issue involves the legal status of the contracting authority.
The High Court set aside a GST demand after finding that tax proceedings were initiated against the wrong person due to clerical errors. The ruling underscores that adjudication based on incorrect identity cannot be sustained.
The High Court held that once the GST Appellate Tribunal is operational and appeal timelines are notified, disputes must be pursued before the tribunal. Taxpayers must comply with statutory pre-deposit requirements under Section 112 before filing appeals.
The Tribunal declared that once conversion was allowed on appeal for the full period, partial challenges could not survive. The Commissioner’s order granting conversion stood validated.
The issue was whether alleged non-genuine purchases justified higher additions despite accepted sales. The Tribunal held that only the profit element can be taxed when purchases are not treated as wholly bogus.
he High Court held that once the GST Appellate Tribunal is functional, disputes must be pursued before it. Filing an appeal requires strict compliance with the statutory pre-deposit under Section 112.
The case examined GST applicability on large-scale plantation and post-plantation maintenance work by a non-profit entity. The ruling confirmed that these activities fall within “preservation of environment.” The takeaway is that GST exemption applies when statutory conditions are met.
GAAR held that plantation and maintenance of trees undertaken by a charitable trust registered under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act qualify as charitable activities for preservation of the environment. Accordingly, such activities are covered under Entry No. 1 of Notification No. 12/2017 and are exempt from GST, even when carried out under government PPP schemes like Harit Van Path Yojna.
The AAR held that construction of a warehouse remains blocked credit as buildings are excluded from “plant and machinery” under amended Section 17(5)(d).
The Court examined whether alleging failure to produce documents alone could justify invoking extended limitation under Section 74 and allowed the issue to be tested on affidavits.
