Delhi High Court
For revenue
Case-law directory
Every ruling, in plain sight.
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
10 rulings found
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
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
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
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
Karnataka High Court
Where contractors executing government works based on pre-GST tenders with tax-inclusive rates faced increased GST liability post- 01.07.2017, statutory liability to pay GST remained unaffected by reimbursement disputes with Employers, and no judicial direction could permit filing revised or amended returns, or waive penalty, interest or limitation, contrary to statutory provisions, thus directions easing such compliance were to be set aside GST: Where government contractors with pre-GST tax-inclusive contracts incurred additional GST liability on works/payments executed after 01.07.2017, direction to reimburse differential tax applied only to concerned Employers and not tax authorities, restricting liability and benefit of revised GST-inclusive recalculation solely to parties to contract and not extending to Revenue authorities
Karnataka High Court
Contractual entitlement to reimbursement of incremental GST cannot alter statutory GST provisions and GST authorities cannot be directed to permit revised returns or waive interest, penalty, or limitation on that basis; such reimbursement dispute lies only between contractor and employer
Karnataka High Court
Where contractors who executed works contracts with State agencies pre and post GST regime claimed reimbursement for post-GST tax liability, entitlement to such reimbursement arose strictly under contract with Employers, statutory GST scheme could not be modified by contract terms, and no relief was available against GST authorities, with liability governed exclusively by statutory provisions
Meghalaya High Court
Where BOT (Annuity) road construction concessionaire challenged SCN and OIO alleging that GST demand on annuity post launch commercial operation of project and sought writ on grounds including jurisdiction and constitutional invalidity, since core disputes related to classification, exemption and composite supply, determination of which required determination of mixed question of facts and law and no grave jurisdictional or natural justice breaches were shown, writ petition was not maintainable and statutory appeal would be an efficacious alternate remedy. GST: Where petitioner, executing BOT (Annuity) Jorabat–Shillong NH-40 project, challenged DGGI and CGST officers’ jurisdiction to issue and adjudicate demand for GST on annuity, both Additional Director-DGGI and Additional Commissioner of CGST-Shillong were Proper Officers appointed and empowered under relevant notifications and statute to act under Sections 73 and 74; so jurisdictional challenge to their actions would fail
Kerala High Court
Where contractor, a registered taxpayer, executed works for government department and contract stipulated government would bear GST liability, statutory obligation to pay tax under CGST/KSGST remained with contractor, so writ petition challenging adjudication was not maintainable and contractual remedies could be pursued separately without affecting tax liability