Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95636 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Uploading GST notices or orders solely in the Common Portal's "View Additional Notices and Orders" tab was not authorised service because the notified portal functions and Rules did not prescribe that tab as a statutory mode of service. Such uploading could not commence the appeal limitation period, particularly where the interface did not prominently disclose communications. E-mail service required transmission of the notice or order itself to the registered e-mail address; an intimation alone was insufficient. Ex parte proceedings based solely on invalid portal service were restored for reply and hearing, while affected appeals could be considered on merits. However, an assessee that replied to and contested a show-cause notice could not later challenge the resulting order solely for defective portal service.
Uploading GST notices or orders solely in the Common Portal's "View Additional Notices and Orders" tab was not authorised service because the notified portal functions and Rules did not prescribe that tab as a statutory mode of service. Such uploading could not commence the appeal limitation period, particularly where the interface did not prominently disclose communications. E-mail service required transmission of the notice or order itself to the registered e-mail address; an intimation alone was insufficient. Ex parte proceedings based solely on invalid portal service were restored for reply and hearing, while affected appeals could be considered on merits. However, an assessee that replied to and contested a show-cause notice could not later challenge the resulting order solely for defective portal service.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.