Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
For GST first appeals, limitation runs from the actual communication of the adjudication order to the assessee. Where the assessee states that date, a presumption arises in its favour and the Revenue must rebut it with cogent material; failure to do so makes dismissal of the appeal as time-barred unsustainable. The Court also held that writ jurisdiction could be invoked despite an alternate statutory remedy because the appellate authority had ignored binding precedent and failed to record an independent finding on limitation. The impugned appellate orders were quashed and the matters remitted for fresh decision in accordance with the governing law on effective communication and limitation.
For GST first appeals, limitation runs from the actual communication of the adjudication order to the assessee. Where the assessee states that date, a presumption arises in its favour and the Revenue must rebut it with cogent material; failure to do so makes dismissal of the appeal as time-barred unsustainable. The Court also held that writ jurisdiction could be invoked despite an alternate statutory remedy because the appellate authority had ignored binding precedent and failed to record an independent finding on limitation. The impugned appellate orders were quashed and the matters remitted for fresh decision in accordance with the governing law on effective communication and limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
