Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Extended limitation under GST was upheld where the assessee had disclosed higher taxable turnover in GSTR-1 but restricted liability in GSTR-3B for part of the year, then failed to file returns for the later period and made only partial payment after inspection. Applying the lower threshold for invoking Section 74 under GST, the HC held that the record was sufficient to infer suppression of turnover and non-payment of tax, so the extended period and consequent demand were valid. On the separate issue of late fee for non-filing of the annual return, the Court found an inconsistency between Defect No.10 and the revenue abstract and remitted the matter only for a corrigendum correcting that limited aspect.
Extended limitation under GST was upheld where the assessee had disclosed higher taxable turnover in GSTR-1 but restricted liability in GSTR-3B for part of the year, then failed to file returns for the later period and made only partial payment after inspection. Applying the lower threshold for invoking Section 74 under GST, the HC held that the record was sufficient to infer suppression of turnover and non-payment of tax, so the extended period and consequent demand were valid. On the separate issue of late fee for non-filing of the annual return, the Court found an inconsistency between Defect No.10 and the revenue abstract and remitted the matter only for a corrigendum correcting that limited aspect.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.