Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
Refusal to rectify the assessment order passed under Rule 142 (5) of the C.G.S.T. Rules, 2017 - denial of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) - The High Court found merit in the petitioner's arguments, noting that the assessing authority had failed to consider relevant legal precedents and a binding Circular issued by the CBIC. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated 30.01.2024 and directed the assessing authority to reconsider the matter and issue a fresh reasoned order by a specified deadline. Pending the fresh order, the High Court ordered the disputed demand of tax and penalty to remain in abeyance.
Refusal to rectify the assessment order passed under Rule 142 (5) of the C.G.S.T. Rules, 2017 - denial of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) - The High Court found merit in the petitioner's arguments, noting that the assessing authority had failed to consider relevant legal precedents and a binding Circular issued by the CBIC. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated 30.01.2024 and directed the assessing authority to reconsider the matter and issue a fresh reasoned order by a specified deadline. Pending the fresh order, the High Court ordered the disputed demand of tax and penalty to remain in abeyance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
