Madras 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.
3 rulings found
Madras High Court
Where registered dealer challenged denial of composition levy prior to 01.04.2019 relying on Notification 02/2019, since enhanced turnover threshold under composition scheme was operative only from 01.04.2019 as implemented by Notification 14/2019, benefit could not be granted for any period before that date and writ petition was dismissed
Madras High Court
Purchase tax under TNGST and TNVAT was leviable on sand, gravel and jelly purchased from unregistered dealers and used in works contracts; Constitution Bench precedent affirmed such levy, and orders of first appellate authority and Tribunal annulling purchase tax were perverse and set aside, restoring assessments. TNGST: Purchase tax under Section 7-A under TN General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was validly leviable on materials purchased from unregistered dealers for works contracts; Section 7-A operated independently of Section 3-B, which governed taxable turnover of transfer of property, and non obstante clause did not exclude purchase tax on goods not previously tax-suffered. VAT: Purchase tax and penalty were validly leviable on materials purchased from unregistered dealers and used in works contracts; upon upholding purchase-tax liability, returns would become incorrect and incomplete, attracting statutory penalties under both TNGST and TNVAT enactments, and assessee’s challenge was to be dismissed
Madras High Court
Where GST-registered contractor in Tamil Nadu executed a construction contract for Supreme Court building at Port Louis, Mauritius under Government of India grant and SCN was issued alleging supply linkage with India based on procurement and financial consolidation, writ to quash SCN was premature as alleged lack of jurisdiction was not patent but required factual examination; so writ appeal was to be dismissed