Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Customs penalty was unsustainable where no show cause notice was served on the appellant and he was denied a proper hearing, breaching natural justice. The Tribunal also held that personal penalties on a director could not stand without credible evidence of active role, knowledge, or a specific act or omission attracting Sections 112(a), 112(b) or 114AA. Mere association with the company was insufficient, so the penalty was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Customs penalty was unsustainable where no show cause notice was served on the appellant and he was denied a proper hearing, breaching natural justice. The Tribunal also held that personal penalties on a director could not stand without credible evidence of active role, knowledge, or a specific act or omission attracting Sections 112(a), 112(b) or 114AA. Mere association with the company was insufficient, so the penalty was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.