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...
Allegations of bogus or paper transactions in the supply chain can support cancellation of GST registration even while return scrutiny is pending, because the two proceedings may run separately and the pendency of scrutiny creates no legal bar. Where the cancellation notice turns on disputed facts, writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum for fact-finding, and the controversy must be tested on evidence before the statutory authority. The High Court therefore declined interference under Article 226, found no adverse meaning could be attached merely to the reference to pending scrutiny, and left the assessee to pursue the statutory appeal on merits.
Allegations of bogus or paper transactions in the supply chain can support cancellation of GST registration even while return scrutiny is pending, because the two proceedings may run separately and the pendency of scrutiny creates no legal bar. Where the cancellation notice turns on disputed facts, writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum for fact-finding, and the controversy must be tested on evidence before the statutory authority. The High Court therefore declined interference under Article 226, found no adverse meaning could be attached merely to the reference to pending scrutiny, and left the assessee to pursue the statutory appeal on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
