Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Wrongful availment of input tax credit, where credit exceeded GSTR-2A and was utilised in GSTR-3B, was treated as prima facie suppression of facts with intent to evade tax, supporting invocation of the extended limitation under GST. The Court also noted an apparent failure to discharge reverse charge liability on commissions from foreign booking agencies. The limitation challenge was rejected as covered by the earlier Madras High Court ruling in Tata Play Limited, and the Court further observed that, for the relevant assessment years, even the period for passing orders under the lesser limitation regime had not expired. The writ petitions were dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal on merits.
Wrongful availment of input tax credit, where credit exceeded GSTR-2A and was utilised in GSTR-3B, was treated as prima facie suppression of facts with intent to evade tax, supporting invocation of the extended limitation under GST. The Court also noted an apparent failure to discharge reverse charge liability on commissions from foreign booking agencies. The limitation challenge was rejected as covered by the earlier Madras High Court ruling in Tata Play Limited, and the Court further observed that, for the relevant assessment years, even the period for passing orders under the lesser limitation regime had not expired. The writ petitions were dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.