Omitted specified domestic transaction provision invalidates related-party expenditure transfer-pricing references and assessments based on consequent...
Preventive suspension requires an immediate continuing threat and cannot become indefinite without inquiry, fresh evidence, or proportionate safeguard...
Jurisdiction over a GST waiver application arising from a combined demand order was not defeated merely because part of the operations concerned another State. Sections 79 and 128A refer to the relevant proper officer, but neither the recovery provision nor the GST Rules prescribe a basis for identifying that officer in this situation. Rule 164 contemplates a single waiver application in Form GST SPL-01 or GST SPL-02 rather than multiple applications. Where one officer issued a combined demand order covering Chennai and Maharashtra operations, no statutory basis existed to refuse jurisdiction over the Maharashtra waiver claim. The rejection of that limited claim was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration after reasonable opportunity.
Jurisdiction over a GST waiver application arising from a combined demand order was not defeated merely because part of the operations concerned another State. Sections 79 and 128A refer to the relevant proper officer, but neither the recovery provision nor the GST Rules prescribe a basis for identifying that officer in this situation. Rule 164 contemplates a single waiver application in Form GST SPL-01 or GST SPL-02 rather than multiple applications. Where one officer issued a combined demand order covering Chennai and Maharashtra operations, no statutory basis existed to refuse jurisdiction over the Maharashtra waiver claim. The rejection of that limited claim was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration after reasonable opportunity.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
