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...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Writ jurisdiction was refused in GST adjudication because the controversy was amenable to the statutory appeal. The High Court held that proceedings under sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act operate in distinct fields, so exoneration under section 73 did not bar action under section 74 on the material before the authorities. It also held that appraisal and reappraisal of evidence, including consideration of additional evidence, lay within the appellate process. The need to make a statutory pre-deposit was not a sufficient ground to bypass the appeal, and the petitioner was left to pursue that remedy on merits.
Writ jurisdiction was refused in GST adjudication because the controversy was amenable to the statutory appeal. The High Court held that proceedings under sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act operate in distinct fields, so exoneration under section 73 did not bar action under section 74 on the material before the authorities. It also held that appraisal and reappraisal of evidence, including consideration of additional evidence, lay within the appellate process. The need to make a statutory pre-deposit was not a sufficient ground to bypass the appeal, and the petitioner was left to pursue that remedy on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
