Category: G S T

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 366(29A)(d) – Finance Act, 1994 – Section 65(105)(zzzzj) – Transfer of right to use the goods -When the substantial control remains with the contractor and is not handed over to the user, there is no transfer of the right to use the vehicles, cranes, tankers, etc – Whenever there is no such control on the goods vested in the person to whom the supply is made, the transaction will be of rendering service within the meaning of Section 65(105) (zzzzj) of the Finance Act after the said provision came into force.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. K.P. MOZIKA — Appellant Vs. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 243W – Exemption from service tax – Going by the golden rule of interpretation that words should be read in their ordinary, natural, and grammatical meaning, the word “or” in clause 2(s) clearly appears to us to have been used to reflect the ordinary and normal sense, that is to denote an alternative, giving a choice; and, this court cannot assign it a different meaning unless it leads to vagueness or makes clause 2(s) absolutely unworkable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, PATNA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent…

Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 – appellants are public sector organizations providing free transportation to their employees and their children in remote hilly areas for safety reasons, and recognizing that a substantial amount of time has passed since the enactment of the Amendment and Validation Act of 1997 (approximately twenty-six years), and that the appellants may have replaced their motor vehicles or buses during this time, the appellants should be liable to pay the tax starting from April 1, 2023, the current financial year onwards, and not for the period before that.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NHPC LTD. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SECRETARY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan,…

Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 – Section 28-A – Power to issue clarification by Commissioner of Commercial taxes – clarification provided by the Commissioner does is to clear the meaning of the two entries which was already implicit but had given rise to a confusion. A clarification of this nature, therefore, is bound to be retrospective – Circular dated 8th October, 1998 does not run counter to the provisions of the Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANTHOSH MAIZE & INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and…

Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 – Section 22A – User development fee collected by the airport operation, maintenance and development entities (i.e., the Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., and the Hyderabad International Airport Pvt. Ltd.) is not subjected to service tax levy, under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL GST DELHI – III — Appellant Vs. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ.…

In the present case, the clear legislative intent, of inserting a carefully worded entry, which was a “hybrid” one, i.e. describing an article that contained medicinal ingredients, as well as those used for cosmetics, and yet placing such a creature (“neither beast nor fowl” so to say) in the category of cosmetics, ruled out altogether any interpretive scope of classifying it as a medicinal preparation, or drug or medicine

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HEINZ INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KERELA — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.