Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
HC held that no error apparent on the face of the record was shown in the earlier order directing consideration of the assessee's pending rectification application and quashing the revised Form-2 under the DTVSV Scheme. The Court noted that the earlier order had already considered the material chronology, including the declaration, initial Form-2, pending rectification request, and the later revised Form-2 issued while the departmental appeal was still pending. Omission to refer to Circular No. 19/2024 did not justify review, because review cannot be used to reopen or reargue issues already decided. The petition was therefore an impermissible attempt at rehearing on merits and was dismissed.
HC held that no error apparent on the face of the record was shown in the earlier order directing consideration of the assessee's pending rectification application and quashing the revised Form-2 under the DTVSV Scheme. The Court noted that the earlier order had already considered the material chronology, including the declaration, initial Form-2, pending rectification request, and the later revised Form-2 issued while the departmental appeal was still pending. Omission to refer to Circular No. 19/2024 did not justify review, because review cannot be used to reopen or reargue issues already decided. The petition was therefore an impermissible attempt at rehearing on merits and was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.