Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
48 rulings found
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner challenged municipal authority's withholding of differential tax under GST regime for works executed under earlier VAT/Service Tax regime, as contract contained arbitration clause and arbitration was already invoked covering this claim, writ under Article 226 was not maintainable and dispute was to be resolved before arbitrator, with no adjudication on merits
AAR Karnataka
Where applicant, a registered partnership, supplied ballast and loaded it into Railway wagons using JCB loaders without undertaking any building, construction, erection or activities connected with immovable property, such work did not meet statutory requirements for works contract and thus could not be classified as one under GST law. GST: Where applicant executed contract for supply of ballast and separate loading service with distinct pricing, sequential execution, separate invoices, and transfer of title to Railways before loading, such supplies were not naturally bundled or composite, but independent and liable to separate GST as per relevant classification and rate for each supply. GST: Where applicant provided loading services of Railway-owned ballast into wagons using mechanical loaders without engaging in transport or wagon movement, activity was essentially cargo handling, classifiable under SAC 996719, and attracted GST at 18 percent as per relevant rate notification
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner contractor executed balance work awarded after GST introduction pursuant to earlier pre-GST tender and BoQ excluded taxes, GST incidence arose post-award and lay outside quoted rates, thus reliance on inclusive rate clause was unwarranted and petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of GST actually paid, subject to proof by GST returns
Supreme Court
SLP dismissed against order of high court that no GST is leviable on assignment of leasehold rights in an industrial plot with building, as such transfer of benefits arising from immovable property is not a 'supply'.'
Karnataka High Court
Where contractors executing government works spanning pre-GST and post- GST periods faced disputes on segregation of supplies, GST computation and supplementary agreements, writ petitions were to be allowed in terms of specific and operative directions laid down in Chandrashekaraiah v. State of Karnataka [2024] 158 appropriate proceedings
Supreme Court
Where writ petition challenging SCN was rendered unnecessary in view of Supreme Court's decision in Gameskraft Technologies, assessee was relegated to appear before Assessing Officer and avail statutory appeal against any adverse assessment order GST : Where final assessment order was passed despite interim protection against coercive action, since statutory remedy of appeal had become available, assessee was relegated to appellate authority with liberty to raise all contentions including revaluation and pre-deposit
AAAR West Bengal
Supply of tobacco based hookah flavours as well as herbal (non-tobacco- based) hookah flavours through a hookah apparatus in a restaurant does not fall within ambit of paragraph 6(b) of Schedule II to GST Acts merely because such supplies are made in conjunction with food, beverages and other restaurant facilities; consequently, such supplies are not classifiable as restaurant service under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) but are to be treated as supplies of goods and taxed in accordance with applicable classification and relevant rate notifications
Rajasthan High Court
Where a college paid affiliation fee to University and GST was demanded on such fee, in view of fact that issue was already settled holding that GST cannot be imposed on affiliation fee, GST demand was to be set aside
Kerala High Court
Where works were completed after GST regime came into force, deduction of embedded KVAT/Service Tax from quoted contract value and levy of GST on resultant amount was valid; any dispute regarding quantification had to be resolved before appropriate forum
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner-college paid affiliation fees to university and demand for GST on such fees was raised, grant of affiliation being a statutory and regulatory function did not constitute supply, affiliation fees were not consideration for taxable activity and were exempt under Entry 66 of Notification 12/2017-CT (Rate), thus GST demand was unsustainable and refund was directed if collected
AAAR West Bengal
CKD/SKD supplies of e-rickshaw components could qualify for classification as complete electrically operated vehicles under Rule 2(a) of General Rules for Interpretation only where all essential components were supplied together as an identifiable kit and contemporaneous records consistently established CKD/SKD supply; absent such evidence, goods were classifiable as parts
AAAR West Bengal
Where assessee traded in sun-cured tobacco leaves procured from farmers and supplied them as such after grading, bundling, and butting, with no process altering leaf character, such supplies remained tobacco leaves under Heading 2401, regardless of curing stage, and were classifiable as tobacco leaves attracting 2.5 per cent CGST and 2.5 per cent SGST
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Where applicant was arrested for alleged manufacture and misclassification of pan masala using scented supari and lime without registration, but only raw materials for scented supari were seized and machines were sealed, since evidence was documentary or electronic which was already secured and custodial interrogation was not essential, bail was to be granted as maximum punishment was five years and triple test governing grant of bail was duly satisfied
Karnataka High Court
Writ court could not direct GST authorities for reimbursement of GST on works contracts; proper course would be to direct concerned Government employer- department to consider contractor's representation for reimbursement
AAR Gujarat
Compensation recovered from transporters for transit loss beyond tolerance limit stipulated in contracts, being liquidated damages for breach of contract, was not consideration for any supply; in absence of any agreement to tolerate breach, such amounts were mere compensation and not liable to GST
Supreme Court
Notice issued against impugned order of High Court that where NHAI granted assessee exclusive toll rights and site access under concession for highway construction with nominal fee and post-Commercial Operation Date (post-COD) premium, with consideration including non-monetary elements like reciprocal toll right, such arrangement constituted a taxable works contract service under Schedule II, and valuation rules prescribed for 'consideration not wholly in money' would apply; thus, GST demand with interest and penalty was valid. GST : Notice issued against impugned order of High Court that where NHAI entered into a DBFOT concession agreement with assessee for construction of highway project and assessee engaged a sub-contractor for construction of highway project under a separate EPC contract while toll collection/asset transfer was governed under a a distinct contract with NHAI, supplies to sub-contractor and by assessee represented separate taxable events; so payment of GST by sub-contractorwould not preclude assessee’s supplies; plea of double taxation was not tenable. GST : Notice issued against impugned order of High Court that where NHAI entered into a DBFOT concession agreement with assessee and assessee, as a concessionaire constructed road with exclusive toll rights as consideration, in view of fact that no monetary payment was received from NHAI, toll collections represented reciprocal or deferred consideration for construction; thus, construction service was taxable under Heading 9954 and did not qualify for GST exemption meant only for access-to-road service by way of toll under Heading 9967, so exemption claim failed.…
Karnataka High Court
Where a Class-I contractor, after award of works contract before GST regime, paid differential GST arising from transition from VAT to GST and sought reimbursement from State which remained unresolved, State as service recipient was obligated to reimburse such differential GST attributable to regime change since petitioner had executed work and discharged due tax as per law
Madras High Court
GST notifications under Sections 9 and 11 must conform to GST Council recommendations; addition of phrase “enforceable right in court of law” for taxing unregistered pulse brands exceeded Council’s 21st meeting recommendation and was held ultra vires, violating cooperative federalism. GST: GST Council has power only to recommend under Article 279A and lacks any express or implied power of ratification; purported ratification in 22nd meeting could not validate notifications levying tax issued beyond its recommendations, as ratification cannot cure an act which is void ab initio
Karnataka High Court
Where writ petitioner, a works contractor, sought directions to file returns or amended returns with relaxed penalty, interest or limitation based on reimbursement clause in contract, such contractual entitlement could not override mandatory GST statutory scheme, and no directions could be issued to relax statutory interest, penalty or limitation for filing returns or revised returns, thus impugned relief granted to petitioner by Single Judge was unsustainable GST: Where works contractor received contract pre-GST but invoices post- 01.07.2017 included GST at 12 percent and post-audit demand was raised at 18 percent, direction for reimbursement of GST liability including interest and penalty was enforceable only against employer and not against tax authorities or State, thus, impugned order was to be set aside to that extent
Karnataka High Court
Where sub-contractor filed GST returns belatedly and GST authorities initiated garnishee action for recovery of interest on delayed payment, Single Judge's direction permitting filing or amendments of returns post 01.07.2017 without insisting on interest, penalty or limitation and restraining recovery was unsustainable since liability to interest arises by statutory mandate and cannot be waived or reduced in absence of specific provision GST: Where a sub-contractor executed works under contracts entered before GST rollout, reimbursement of incremental GST liability due to regime change arose solely between contracting parties and could not bind tax authorities, and statutory provisions for levy and collection of GST could not be altered by contractual terms, making any reimbursement direction enforceable only against employer and not against tax authorities