Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Validity of determination of GST liability (demand) u/s 73(1) - Rejection of the compounding application - Eligibility for composition scheme u/s 10(2)(a) - The High Court found merit in the petitioner's argument regarding procedural irregularity. It noted that the show cause notice for determining tax liability was issued before the eligibility for the composition scheme was even considered, let alone rejected. This violated the statutory scheme outlined in the Act. The Court emphasized that the proper sequence of procedures should have been followed, starting with determining the petitioner's eligibility for the composition scheme. Only after an order rejecting the composition application should a notice under Section 73(1) be issued to determine tax liability.
Validity of determination of GST liability (demand) u/s 73(1) - Rejection of the compounding application - Eligibility for composition scheme u/s 10(2)(a) - The High Court found merit in the petitioner's argument regarding procedural irregularity. It noted that the show cause notice for determining tax liability was issued before the eligibility for the composition scheme was even considered, let alone rejected. This violated the statutory scheme outlined in the Act. The Court emphasized that the proper sequence of procedures should have been followed, starting with determining the petitioner's eligibility for the composition scheme. Only after an order rejecting the composition application should a notice under Section 73(1) be issued to determine tax liability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
