Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Rectification petition - Validity Of Order passed - discrepancy between the GSTR 3B return - The petitioner contended that the discrepancy arose due to the belated filing of GSTR 1 by the supplier for one invoice and asserted their inability to upload a reply on the GST portal. Supporting documents, including certificates from the supplier and their Chartered Accountant, were submitted but not considered in the impugned order. - The High Court found that the non-consideration of these documents was significant and warranted interference with the order. Consequently, the court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the respondent for reconsideration.
Rectification petition - Validity Of Order passed - discrepancy between the GSTR 3B return - The petitioner contended that the discrepancy arose due to the belated filing of GSTR 1 by the supplier for one invoice and asserted their inability to upload a reply on the GST portal. Supporting documents, including certificates from the supplier and their Chartered Accountant, were submitted but not considered in the impugned order. - The High Court found that the non-consideration of these documents was significant and warranted interference with the order. Consequently, the court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the respondent for reconsideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.