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...
A writ challenge to a show-cause notice was treated as premature because the notice only proposed action and the petitioner could still file objections in the statutory process; the Court therefore declined to entertain the petition, allowed a further reply to the corrigendum, and directed disposal by a reasoned and speaking order. On jurisdiction, the Court held that the CGST Assistant/Deputy Commissioner was vested with authority under the relevant rules, and a differing rubber-stamp description below the signature did not negate that competence. The jurisdictional objection was rejected.
A writ challenge to a show-cause notice was treated as premature because the notice only proposed action and the petitioner could still file objections in the statutory process; the Court therefore declined to entertain the petition, allowed a further reply to the corrigendum, and directed disposal by a reasoned and speaking order. On jurisdiction, the Court held that the CGST Assistant/Deputy Commissioner was vested with authority under the relevant rules, and a differing rubber-stamp description below the signature did not negate that competence. The jurisdictional objection was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.