Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Time Limitation - validity of orders passed by the 1st respondent u/s 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - The High Court observed that, the proceedings were initiated by notice dated 29/9/2023 and order u/s 73(9) was passed on 3/11/2023. - It is apparent therefore that the thirty-day period that is envisaged from the date of the notice under Section 73(2) is for the purpose of enabling an assessee to pay tax along with interest payable under Section 50 so as to avoid the payment of penalty. This opportunity was not extended to the appellant herein and virtually amounted to non-compliance with the mandatory procedure envisaged under the Statute. - The HC held that, since the terminal for passing the order under Section 73(9) expired on 31/12/2023 the said defect cannot now be cured since any fresh order passed under Section 73(9) would be beyond 31/12/2023. - The order quashed.
Time Limitation - validity of orders passed by the 1st respondent u/s 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - The High Court observed that, the proceedings were initiated by notice dated 29/9/2023 and order u/s 73(9) was passed on 3/11/2023. - It is apparent therefore that the thirty-day period that is envisaged from the date of the notice under Section 73(2) is for the purpose of enabling an assessee to pay tax along with interest payable under Section 50 so as to avoid the payment of penalty. This opportunity was not extended to the appellant herein and virtually amounted to non-compliance with the mandatory procedure envisaged under the Statute. - The HC held that, since the terminal for passing the order under Section 73(9) expired on 31/12/2023 the said defect cannot now be cured since any fresh order passed under Section 73(9) would be beyond 31/12/2023. - The order quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
