Search
Advanced Search Search with field filters
/adv
Navigation
Home Go to homepage
/home
Direct Tax Income Tax resources
GST GST Acts, Rules & Case Laws
Company Law Companies Act & SEBI
Due Date Tracker Statutory compliance deadlines
/due
Due Date Calendar Calendar view of compliance deadlines
Daily Digest Today's tax updates and articles
/digest
Landmark Rulings

GST landmark rulings

5,404 rulings

  1. AAR · 24 May 2023
    Since the transfer of property in the goods supplied under first contract is not taking place during the execution of the Works Contract under second contract, the value thereof cannot be included in Works Contract.

    In the matter of PES Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

    (2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7575 (AAR)

  2. AAR · 24 May 2023
    Service provider of motor vehicle hire service has to charge GST on whole amount of bill which includes monthly rental plus night charges plus fuel on mileage basis, and not just monthly rental.

    In the matter of Uttarakhand Public Financial Strengthening Project

    (2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7574 (AAR)

  3. Delhi High Court · 23 May 2023
    Refund of SGST was processed and disbursed, however, refund of CGST and IGST was not processed despite refund order sanctioning the same.

    Sesame Workshop Initiatives (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI & Ors.

    (2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7573 (HC-DELHI)

  4. Rajasthan High Court · 23 May 2023
    As per Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, there is no specific requirement that the declaration must be signed in physical mode.

    Medicamen Biotech Ltd vs UOI & ors

    (2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7572 (HC-RAJASTHAN)

  5. Tripura High Court · 23 May 2023
    Assessee is providing work contract services under a contract of construction of building of a Hotel wherein transfer of property in goods is involved in the execution of such contract and it has fulfilled all the conditions of work contracts.

    SR Constructions vs. UOI

    (2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7571 (HC-Tripura)

  6. Allahabad High Court · 23 May 2023
    Value of goods in transit is to be determined as per section 15 read with Explanation 2 of Rule 138.

    S.K. Trading Co. and Anr. vs. Additional Commissioner

    (2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7570 (HC-ALLAHABAD)

  7. Madras High Court · 23 May 2023
    It is not for the transporter to make a submission for seeking release of conveyance on the ground that tax has been paid in full, as such payment, if at all, would have been borne by the assessee concerned, and not the transporter.

    Lodha Roadways vs. Deputy State Tax Officer

    (2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7568 (HC-MADRAS)

  8. Delhi High Court · 23 May 2023
    Question whether an entity is an intermediary will have to be determined on the basis of actual work performed.

    Netgear Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner, CGST Appeals

    (2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7567 (HC-DELHI)

  9. Delhi High Court · 23 May 2023
    Mere suspicion that the petitioner is a dummy company in complete disregard of the corporate documents would clearly fall foul of the requirement of forming an opinion for taking an action under Section 83 of the CGST Act.

    Sidhivinayak Chemtech Pvt Ltd vs Pr. Commissioner

    (2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7566 (HC-DELHI)

  10. AAR · 22 May 2023
    To the extent of foundation and structural support for the Sand mill & Spray dryer, ITC is eligible, but blocked on structure/shed erected on it, since they would fall within the ambit of civil structure.

    In the matter of Colourband Dyestuff P Ltd.

    (2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7559 (AAR)

  11. AAR · 18 May 2023
    Composite supply of construction services will not include sale/right to use car parking since it is not naturally bundled with construction services.

    In the matter of Eden Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.

    (2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7552 (AAR)

  12. AAR · 18 May 2023
    The processing done by the Applicant on the purchased goods changes the nature of goods as opposed to the conditions stated under Rule 32.

    In the matter of White Gold Bullion Pit Ltd

    (2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7551 (AAR)

  13. Allahabad High Court · 18 May 2023
    The order of the appellate authority is even further bad in law as it discloses no reason, whatsoever for assessing the tax and quantifying the liability.

    Diamond Steel vs. State of UP

    (2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7550 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Section 74

  14. AAR · 17 May 2023
    If the sale price is a consolidated price, then charges proportionate to club house and common amenities are applicable to GST.

    In the matter of Godrej Properties Ltd

    (2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7545 (AAR)

  15. P&H High Court · 16 May 2023
    Filing of digitally uploaded copy of order against which appeal has been filed along with the appeal amount to substantial compliance of Rule 108 of the Haryana GST Rules, 2017.

    KPMG India Pvt Ltd Vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals)

    (2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7540 (HC-P&H)

  16. MP High Court · 16 May 2023
    No personal hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, and hence, the impugned order is not sustainable.

    Concord Tieup Pvt. Ltd vs State of Madhya Pradesh & ors

    (2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7539 (HC-MP)

  17. Madras High Court · 16 May 2023
    The mere fact that an order has been passed under Rule 86A(2) of TNGST Rules for unblocking of credit will not stand in the way of the assessing officer making an assessment or curtail his powers in any way, in such an exercise.

    D. Ranganathan vs. The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.

    (2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7538 (HC-MADRAS)

  18. P&H High Court · 16 May 2023
    There is no delay on the part of the respondents in making payment of refund since payment of refund has been made after following the guidelines given in Circular No. 94/13/2019-GST dated March 28, 2019.

    Afflatus International vs. UOI & Ors.

    (2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7537 (HC-P&H)

  19. Delhi High Court · 16 May 2023
    Revenue is directed to disburse the assessee’s claim for refund along with interest.

    Alex Tour and Travel Private Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner, CGST

    (2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7536 (HC-DELHI)

  20. Madras High Court · 15 May 2023
    The very purpose of fixing the mandatory pre-deposit is to do away with the procedure of granting stay after hearing, which was delaying the disposal of the appeal earlier.

    Mahalaxmi Metal Co. vs. the Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Ors.

    (2023) TaxCorp(IDT) 7529 (HC-MADRAS)

Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.


An unhandled error has occurred. Reload ×

Rejoining the server...

Rejoin failed... trying again in seconds.

Failed to rejoin.
Please retry or reload the page.

The session has been paused by the server.

Failed to resume the session.
Please retry or reload the page.