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" ?
Extraordinary writ jurisdiction was declined where the taxpayer's statutory appeal against a GST demand had become time-barred. The notes state that the taxpayer submitted a physical reply to the show-cause notice because the portal had earlier been handled by a chartered accountant, but the final order recorded no reply and confirmed the demand. A rectification application under the GST Act remained pending but also appeared time-barred. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that expiry of the statutory appellate limitation did not justify exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.
Extraordinary writ jurisdiction was declined where the taxpayer's statutory appeal against a GST demand had become time-barred. The notes state that the taxpayer submitted a physical reply to the show-cause notice because the portal had earlier been handled by a chartered accountant, but the final order recorded no reply and confirmed the demand. A rectification application under the GST Act remained pending but also appeared time-barred. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that expiry of the statutory appellate limitation did not justify exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.