Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
