Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
GST demand limitation under Section 73 runs from the due date for the annual return; extensions of those due dates change its commencement, and pandemic-period exclusion must be applied when calculating the three-year period. A notice issued after the resulting deadline cannot be sustained under the ordinary limitation. Recourse to Section 74's five-year period requires the Assessing Officer's satisfaction, based on disclosed foundational facts, that fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression caused the tax shortfall or excess input tax credit. Audit objections and bare statutory assertions are insufficient. The show-cause notice and consequential order were set aside, with liberty for fresh Section 74 proceedings within the applicable extended limitation.
GST demand limitation under Section 73 runs from the due date for the annual return; extensions of those due dates change its commencement, and pandemic-period exclusion must be applied when calculating the three-year period. A notice issued after the resulting deadline cannot be sustained under the ordinary limitation. Recourse to Section 74's five-year period requires the Assessing Officer's satisfaction, based on disclosed foundational facts, that fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression caused the tax shortfall or excess input tax credit. Audit objections and bare statutory assertions are insufficient. The show-cause notice and consequential order were set aside, with liberty for fresh Section 74 proceedings within the applicable extended limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.