Madras 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.
7 rulings found
Madras High Court
Where petitioner was denied ITC on inputs used for construction of property intended for lease or license on grounds of blocked credit for immovable property, and Chief Commissioner of Central GST v. Safari Retreats (P.) Ltd. [2024] 167 where construction is for own use or as builder's business premises, orders made without considering said principle required fresh evaluation and same were to be set aside GST: Where revenue recovered amounts from electronic cash and credit ledgers without issuing pre-recovery intimation in FORM GST DRC-01D and without allowing statutory 7 days for payment, such recovery violated Rule 142B and statutory recovery scheme, especially as assessment orders had been set aside, entitling petitioner to restoration of all such debited amounts
Supreme Court
Review petition dismissed against dismissal of SLP that telecommunication towers does not qualify test of permanency as they are not ‘attached to earth’, they can be dismantled and moved and are never erected with an intent of conferring permanency and their placement on concrete bases was only to enable those towers to overcome vagaries of nature, they can be considered as moveable property eligible for ITC
Delhi High Court
Where petitioners challenged constitutional validity of section 17(5)(c) and (d) of CGST Act regarding blocked credit for works contract for construction of immovable property invoking functionality test and apprehended loss of benefits due to litigation delay, since challenge was foreclosed by Supreme Court, functionality test was to be applied case wise
GSTAT Kolkata
Input tax credit in respect of MEIS duty scrips could not be excluded from aggregate value of exempt supplies for period prior to Notification No 14 of 2022 as amendment to Rule 43 excluding value of duty credit scrips was intended to operate prospectively and ITC being concessional in nature could not be claimed retrospectively as vested right GST: Where assessee had disclosed availment of ITC on outward supply of MEIS duty credit scrips in GSTR-3B and department was aware of such transactions, there was no concealment of facts or intention to evade tax, and therefore fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression could not be alleged merely because assessee claimed retrospective benefit of amendment to Rule 43, making invocation of section 74(1) unsustainable and requiring fresh determination of tax liability
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Where retrospective amendment to Section 17(5)(d) was challenged by filing belated appeal, though Appellate Authority lacked power to condone delay beyond statutory limit, High Court set aside dismissal of appeal as time-barred and remanded matter for fresh decision on merits
AAR Uttarakhand
Where applicant paid/will be paying GST on upfront lease premium for industrial plot intended for factory construction, since bar on ITC for goods or services used for construction of immovable property applies, applicant is not eligible for claim of ITC of GST paid/payable on upfront payment of lease amount
Madras High Court
ITC on works contracts and construction of immovable property used for renting is blocked under Section 17(5)(d); rented building being not “plant or machinery,” ITC claimed on such construction was rightly denied GST: Prior intimation to department, without statutory approval, does not preclude invocation of extended limitation; where blocked ITC was availed beyond prescribed time and without concurrence, extended period and equal penalty for suppression were rightly invoked despite subsequent reversal of credit. GST : Joint assessment proceedings for multiple tax periods justified; common show cause notice issued for multiple tax periods cannot be challenged