Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
For assessee
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.
33 rulings found
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Where petitioner-taxi union was permitted to operate on public land under temporary allotment and rental terms, respondents could not demand GST on rentals for period prior to 08.07.2017 since GST came into force only thereafter, and petitioner was liable for dues with GST only for period commencing from 08.07.2017
Calcutta High Court
Where electrical line repair and maintenance services had been completed in 2015 before introduction of GST, subsequent approval and billing in 2019 could not alter date of supply or bring completed services within GST regime, consequently payment withheld for want of GST registration was directed to be released with interest after deducting tax, if any, applicable under pre-GST regime
Bombay High Court
Where film producer gave licensed rights to distributors to broadcast and show cinematographic films for a limited term and supplied content via encrypted hard disks or electronic links without providing software, same was to be classified as temporary licensing of IPR under SAC 997332 taxable at 12 percent applied, and not as supply of information technology software taxable at 18 percent since delivery mode and content format did not satisfy statutory classification for software. GST: Where petitioner gave licensed cinematographic rights to distributors and paid GST at 12 percent under SAC 997332 before CBIC circulars clarified overlap between 12 percent (SAC 9973) and 18 percent (SAC 9996) rates, such circulars would be binding and applicable to entire licensing chain; so confining benefit only to distributor-exhibitor transaction and not to producer-distributor transaction was contrary to law and not justified
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
Karnataka High Court
Where a registered civil contractor executed pre-GST works and after GST rollout paid differential GST, as State received benefit of works post-GST implementation, contractor had enforceable right thereto, thus, recipient municipal authority was liable to reimburse GST-attributable differential subject to verification
Rajasthan High Court
Where a school challenged levy and collection of GST on affiliation fees via circular and notice, and precedence established parity between school and college affiliations regarding GST applicability, levy on school affiliation fees was held unsustainable and both impugned circular and subsequent notice along with all consequential proceedings were to be quashed on the basis of parity with legal precedent
Chhattisgarh High Court
Where petitioner and respondent No.2 quoted identical rates for meal supply tender and petitioner's bid was rejected amid GST ambiguity, subsequent post-bid offer and allegations of delay or unpaid dues did not establish illegality, arbitrariness, or breach of tender terms, as judicial review under Article 226 is limited to ensuring fairness and process, not to revisiting merits or contract disputes
Karnataka High Court
Where property acquired by compulsory acquisition for highway widening included land with attached structure and compensation was awarded, deduction of GST from compensation was unwarranted since such expropriation did not constitute a supply of goods or services under GST scheme and no statutory basis existed for GST levy, thus GST deduction was ultra vires and liable for refund
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
Karnataka High Court
Where a contractor under a works contract faced additional tax burden due to transition from VAT to GST, having paid differential GST post-regime change, contractor acquired legal right to reimbursement from State, and State as beneficiary is obliged to reimburse the contractor to the extent of GST-attributable liability, subject to verification
Karnataka High Court
Where civil contractor executed road works under contract with State and, following GST replacing VAT, paid differential GST due to regime change, contractor became entitled to reimbursement of additional GST from beneficiary State entity, as liability to bear such tax rests on service recipient and reimbursement right extends only to tax attributable to GST regime introduction, subject to verification and law
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner, a Class-I civil contractor, executed government works awarded before GST replacing VAT and paid differential GST arising from transition, petitioner acquired legal right to reimbursement of such differential tax, with State as recipient of works contract service being bound by earlier rulings to reimburse only differential attributable to GST introduction subject to due verification
Karnataka High Court
Where Class-I contractor executed pre-GST works contract for State and, due to GST implementation, incurred additional GST liability which was paid to authorities, contractor was legally entitled to reimbursement of GST-induced differential from State, as State benefitted from contract and consistent decisions require recipient to bear increased tax incidence subject to verification of claim
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
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
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
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
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