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...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition challenging the cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner company. The court found that the registration was not cancelled due to fraud, willful misrepresentation, or suppression of facts. The court noted that in cases of inter se disputes between directors, appropriate proceedings under Section 241 of the Companies Act could have been initiated. However, as no such action was taken in this case, the court could not presume a dispute between the directors. The court also stated that the cancellation of registration can only occur if the Registering Authority concludes that it was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. Since the petitioner did not take any steps to prove such allegations, the court could not presume wrongdoing by the authorized director. The prayer for mandamus was denied, and the petition was dismissed.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition challenging the cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner company. The court found that the registration was not cancelled due to fraud, willful misrepresentation, or suppression of facts. The court noted that in cases of inter se disputes between directors, appropriate proceedings under Section 241 of the Companies Act could have been initiated. However, as no such action was taken in this case, the court could not presume a dispute between the directors. The court also stated that the cancellation of registration can only occur if the Registering Authority concludes that it was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. Since the petitioner did not take any steps to prove such allegations, the court could not presume wrongdoing by the authorized director. The prayer for mandamus was denied, and the petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
