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
AAR West Bengal
Where applicant, a trader of dried and cured tobacco leaves, seeks advance ruling on classification and rate despite previous proceedings concluding that goods are taxable as unmanufactured tobacco at 28 percent, admission of application was barred by first proviso to Section 98(2) since identical questions has already been decided and therefore application is to be rejected as not admissible
AAAR West Bengal
Where appellant completed construction contracts and received final payments prior to GST regime, but later sought advance ruling regarding taxability of compensation received post-arbitration, since advance ruling provisions applies only to ongoing or proposed supplies, and not to completed transactions, application was not maintainable and ruling could not be sustained GST: Where WBAAR admitted and ruled on an application regarding classification and taxability, on appeal, AAAR could examine maintainability even though admission occurred under Section 98(2), as appellate jurisdiction under Section 101(1) allows consideration of legal questions including maintainability, despite no departmental appeal or specific challenge from appellant. GST: Where appellant completed works pre-GST, received arbitral award in 2023 with payments in 2024, invocation of Section 142(2)(a) for treating awarded sums as upward price revision was incorrect since arbitral award alone does not constitute upward revision, and whether components are consideration for supplies, revision, damages or other heads requires case-specific fact scrutiny outside advance ruling scope. GST: Where amounts awarded for services that were potentially taxable under erstwhile law but not actually taxed are considered in transitional provisions; mere non-payment of service tax under old regime does not by itself mandate levy of GST, as section 142(11)(a) intends to prevent double taxation based on leviability under earlier law, not actual payment
Karnataka High Court
Third-party petitioner lacked locus to challenge an AAR/AAAR ruling under Article 226, as such rulings bind only applicant therein and its jurisdictional authority; absent contractual GST classification or rate terms in respect of contract entered between petitioner and said applicant, no civil consequence arose, and writ jurisdiction could not rewrite contract