Alternative statutory remedy under GST bars writ challenge where classification, notice variance, and hearing disputes require factual appellate revie...
Duplicate PAN cancellation timeframe requires prior administrative representation before judicial intervention, ensuring a time-bound decision on the ...
Natural justice and pre-CIRP labour awards protect termination compensation, permitting withdrawal of court deposits despite later insolvency resoluti...
Page of 4886
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 97705 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
GST interest on self-assessed return liabilities is discharged only when the Electronic Cash Ledger is debited towards the identified liability; a sufficient unappropriated cash balance does not stop interest until belated GSTR-3B filing. The later Rule 88B(1) proviso excluding amounts credited by the due date and continuously retained in that ledger operates prospectively, not for earlier periods. Notice proceedings remain valid where the taxpayer received the demand basis and computation, gave detailed replies, and established no actual prejudice. Denial of a requested personal hearing breached section 75(4), but did not require remand where the record was complete, the remaining issue was legal, and no lost substantive opportunity was identified. Interest demands were sustained, subject to reconciliation to prevent double recovery; substantive refund claims failed.
GST interest on self-assessed return liabilities is discharged only when the Electronic Cash Ledger is debited towards the identified liability; a sufficient unappropriated cash balance does not stop interest until belated GSTR-3B filing. The later Rule 88B(1) proviso excluding amounts credited by the due date and continuously retained in that ledger operates prospectively, not for earlier periods. Notice proceedings remain valid where the taxpayer received the demand basis and computation, gave detailed replies, and established no actual prejudice. Denial of a requested personal hearing breached section 75(4), but did not require remand where the record was complete, the remaining issue was legal, and no lost substantive opportunity was identified. Interest demands were sustained, subject to reconciliation to prevent double recovery; substantive refund claims failed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.