Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Sterling & Wilson Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Joint Commissioner, (State Tax) and Appellate Authority (State Tax) Commercial Tax Department – Respondent
ORDER :
R. Raghunandan Rao, J.
Heard Sri N. Govind Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner, who is engaged in the business of setting up of Solar Power Plants, had been paying GST @ 5% of its turnover. As the rate of GST on the inputs, obtained by the petitioner, was higher than the GST rate of finished goods, the petitioner, invoking the provisions of Section 54 of the A.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the GST Act'), claimed refund of a sum of Rs.8,65,63,538/-, for the period January, 2018 to March, 2018.
3. This application was rejected and became the starting point of a fresh enquiry, for assessment of tax, for the period 30.11.2017 to 30.09.2018. The Assessing Authority issued a show cause notice, dated 17.09.2019, proposing to assess the turnover of the petitioner @ 18%, on the ground that the transactions undertaken by the petitioner are Works Contract, as defined under Section 2(119) of the GST Act. The petitioner objected to the same, on the ground that the activities of the petitioner would have to be treated as composite supply, as defined under Sect
The solar power generating system is classified as a composite supply, not a works contract, as it does not constitute immovable property under GST law.
Telecommunication towers are considered movable property and qualify for input tax credit, as they do not meet the criteria for immovable property under Section 17(5) of the CGST Act.
Agreement to sell – If instead of separate instruments, distinct matters are made subject matter of one instrument, liability to pay duty would be still found within four walls of Section 5 of Stamp ....
Services rendered and received entirely outside India are not liable for service tax under reverse charge mechanism.
Clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5) of the CGST Act are constitutional, allowing for reasonable classification regarding input tax credit for construction of immovable property.
The petitioner's appeal against the Assessment Order under sec. 23(4) of the MVAT Act was dismissed by the Court on the grounds of the availability of an alternative remedy and the presence of disput....
Mobile towers and prefabricated buildings qualify as capital goods and inputs under CENVAT Rules, allowing mobile service providers to claim CENVAT credit on excise duties paid.
The court ruled that a contract involving both supply and installation qualifies as a works contract, which is outside the jurisdiction of MSMED Act, leading to the Arbitrator's award being set aside....
The court ruled that GST does not apply to services executed outside India's territory, affirming that the taxpayer's activities in Maldives constituted a fixed establishment subject to local laws.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
