Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Writ interference with a GST show cause notice and adjudication order was declined because an efficacious statutory appeal was available and no breach of natural justice or statutory provision was shown. The petitioner had participated in the proceedings, filed replies, and had not raised before adjudication the plea that only part of the notice was served. The reference to 2021 in the relied-upon documents was accepted as an inadvertent typographical error, as the demand related to October 2018 to November 2019. The order in original covered the relevant periods and showed that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity of hearing; the disputed factual issues were left to the appellate authority.
Writ interference with a GST show cause notice and adjudication order was declined because an efficacious statutory appeal was available and no breach of natural justice or statutory provision was shown. The petitioner had participated in the proceedings, filed replies, and had not raised before adjudication the plea that only part of the notice was served. The reference to 2021 in the relied-upon documents was accepted as an inadvertent typographical error, as the demand related to October 2018 to November 2019. The order in original covered the relevant periods and showed that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity of hearing; the disputed factual issues were left to the appellate authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.