Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Generation of Duplicate / multiple E-way Bills - Delay in filing of Appeal before the Appellate Authority - The petitioner argued that these duplicates were the result of technical mistakes made by a new employee. Although multiple E-way bills were generated for the same invoices, only one consignment was actually dispatched, with the GST collected duly paid to the department and reflected in the returns. The High Court, acknowledging the technical nature of the error and the rectification attempts by the petitioner, concluded that no tax demand was justified. However, the Court noted a delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time frame and directed the petitioner to pay 15% of the disputed tax. - Petitioner permitted to file an appeal within two weeks.
Generation of Duplicate / multiple E-way Bills - Delay in filing of Appeal before the Appellate Authority - The petitioner argued that these duplicates were the result of technical mistakes made by a new employee. Although multiple E-way bills were generated for the same invoices, only one consignment was actually dispatched, with the GST collected duly paid to the department and reflected in the returns. The High Court, acknowledging the technical nature of the error and the rectification attempts by the petitioner, concluded that no tax demand was justified. However, the Court noted a delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time frame and directed the petitioner to pay 15% of the disputed tax. - Petitioner permitted to file an appeal within two weeks.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.