COVID-19 limitation exclusion and destination-specific e-way bills govern revisional timelines and penalties for undocumented third-party plywood deli...
Questions arising from miscellaneous application orders cannot challenge unaltered Tribunal findings, leaving the original order separately challengea...
Transfer-pricing comparability filters require fresh arm's-length analysis, while delayed receivables need separate reconsideration with working-capit...
Section 153C jurisdiction requires timely deemed search and assessee-specific satisfaction material; otherwise reassessment must use the proper statut...
Unconditional omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST/WBGST Rules, 2017, without a saving clause, rendered the rule nonexistent for proceedings founded solely on it. Applying Supreme Court law on the effect of such omission, the High Court found that the impugned proceedings had no independent statutory basis. The show-cause notice and consequential orders concerning July 2017 to March 2021 were therefore quashed, and the writ petition was disposed of.
Unconditional omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST/WBGST Rules, 2017, without a saving clause, rendered the rule nonexistent for proceedings founded solely on it. Applying Supreme Court law on the effect of such omission, the High Court found that the impugned proceedings had no independent statutory basis. The show-cause notice and consequential orders concerning July 2017 to March 2021 were therefore quashed, and the writ petition was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.