Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
GST assessment orders concerning short payment of tax and alleged non-payment on seigniorage fees under reverse charge mechanism were remitted for fresh adjudication. On the short-reported turnover issue, the impugned orders were treated as an addendum to the show cause notices, and the taxpayer was required to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and file separate replies with supporting documents before fresh merits-based orders were passed. On the seigniorage-fee issue, substantive taxability was not decided; instead, the matter was deferred, a 10% deposit and replies were required, and separate orders were directed only after the Supreme Court resolves the reverse charge taxability question, leaving that controversy open.
GST assessment orders concerning short payment of tax and alleged non-payment on seigniorage fees under reverse charge mechanism were remitted for fresh adjudication. On the short-reported turnover issue, the impugned orders were treated as an addendum to the show cause notices, and the taxpayer was required to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and file separate replies with supporting documents before fresh merits-based orders were passed. On the seigniorage-fee issue, substantive taxability was not decided; instead, the matter was deferred, a 10% deposit and replies were required, and separate orders were directed only after the Supreme Court resolves the reverse charge taxability question, leaving that controversy open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
