Tax deduction compliance and payee income recognition govern consultancy disallowance, while no exempt income prevents related expenditure disallowanc...
Derivative abetment liability fails when correctly declared imported components establish no underlying improper importation by the principal importer...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Delhi High Court addressed a case involving a violation of principles of natural justice due to an ex-parte demand created under section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner failed to respond to a Show Cause Notice regarding excess claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and scrutiny of ITC availed. The court held that the impugned order was solely based on the lack of reply to the Show Cause Notice. As there was no Annexure-B provided by the Respondents, the court granted the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the Notice. Consequently, the order dated 12.12.2023 was set aside, and the Show Cause Notice was remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. The petition was disposed of through remand.
The Delhi High Court addressed a case involving a violation of principles of natural justice due to an ex-parte demand created under section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner failed to respond to a Show Cause Notice regarding excess claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and scrutiny of ITC availed. The court held that the impugned order was solely based on the lack of reply to the Show Cause Notice. As there was no Annexure-B provided by the Respondents, the court granted the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the Notice. Consequently, the order dated 12.12.2023 was set aside, and the Show Cause Notice was remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. The petition was disposed of through remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.