Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
Section 74(5) of the GST law read with Rule 142(1A) confers a statutory pre-show-cause opportunity to settle the proposed demand by paying tax, interest and reduced penalty, and the Rule must be read consistently with that right. The High Court held that use of the word "may" in Rule 142(1A) cannot defeat the mandatory effect of the principal legislation. Non-issuance of DRC-01A does not by itself make DRC-01 without jurisdiction, but where the noticee invokes the statutory benefit in reply, the assessee cannot be denied the option to discharge the demand. As the petitioner raised that plea, the adjudication was to stand satisfied on payment within the time granted.
Section 74(5) of the GST law read with Rule 142(1A) confers a statutory pre-show-cause opportunity to settle the proposed demand by paying tax, interest and reduced penalty, and the Rule must be read consistently with that right. The High Court held that use of the word "may" in Rule 142(1A) cannot defeat the mandatory effect of the principal legislation. Non-issuance of DRC-01A does not by itself make DRC-01 without jurisdiction, but where the noticee invokes the statutory benefit in reply, the assessee cannot be denied the option to discharge the demand. As the petitioner raised that plea, the adjudication was to stand satisfied on payment within the time granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.