High Court of Madras
S. Thiruvenkadam v. Commissioner of Municipal Administration
For revenue
W.P. NO. 29338 OF 2024
High Court of Madras
W.P. NO. 29338 OF 2024
Commercial exploitation of market-fee collection rights obtained through public auction was not exempt from GST as a municipal function, since petitioner was not a local authority; tender conditions required payment of taxes, and COVID-period lease waiver could not be claimed as of right while statutory dues remained unpaid
Section 11 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 243W of Constitution of India, 1950
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.
Members
The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.
Free to join. No card required.
Already a member? Sign in
GSTAT Raipur
Where appellant, a lender of housing loans, faced demand for GST on loan recoveries but invoked exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-CTR Entry 27 for first time before Tribunal, exemption applied as pure legal plea could be raised at any stage and recovery of loan amounts qualified as exempt service under Entry 27 GST: Where a housing loan lender claimed that receipts treated as taxable supply were actually recoveries of principal from written-off housing loan accounts and supported this with bank records showing deposits and SARFAESI charges, failure by revenue to consider admissible certified evidence warranted remand for production and consideration of such documents for just determination of exemption claim
Gujarat High Court
Where petitioner-entity registered under section 12AA of income tax act, 1961 carried out pollution control and treatment of industrial waste, such activity is preservation of environment and falls under clause 2(r)(iv) of Chapter 99, thus services attracted Nil rate of GST as per Notification 12/2017 and levy under Notification 11/2017 was not applicable. GST: Where petitioners, having relied on charitable exemption under section 12AA of Income tax act, 1961, did not pay GST for specified period but later obtained registration and began paying tax, invocation of section 74 on grounds of mis- declaration or wilful suppression was not justified as all facts were known, there was no mala fide intent or deliberate evasion, and show cause notice was quashed
Delhi High Court
Where an Advocate registered as Insolvency Professional rendered insolvency and receivership services pursuant to NCLT appointment, such services were not classified as legal services and hence not covered under reverse charge, making professional liable under forward charge to obtain GST registration and issue GST- compliant invoices, while legal services rendered as Advocate would continue under reverse charge