Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
Statutory appellate limitation under the BGST Act forms part of the legislative scheme for prompt GST dispute resolution. Writ jurisdiction may be available exceptionally for fundamental-rights violations, breach of natural justice, jurisdictional excess or a vires challenge, but not routinely to revive an expired appellate remedy. The prescribed extension period for a GST appeal constrains the appellate authority, and Article 226 cannot be used to disregard that substantive limitation or condone delay beyond it. An unexplained prolonged delay in approaching the High Court after an appeal is rejected as time-barred undermines the limitation regime; a writ challenge in those circumstances is not maintainable.
Statutory appellate limitation under the BGST Act forms part of the legislative scheme for prompt GST dispute resolution. Writ jurisdiction may be available exceptionally for fundamental-rights violations, breach of natural justice, jurisdictional excess or a vires challenge, but not routinely to revive an expired appellate remedy. The prescribed extension period for a GST appeal constrains the appellate authority, and Article 226 cannot be used to disregard that substantive limitation or condone delay beyond it. An unexplained prolonged delay in approaching the High Court after an appeal is rejected as time-barred undermines the limitation regime; a writ challenge in those circumstances is not maintainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.