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...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
The Delhi High Court addressed the issue of the cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner with retrospective effect. The court found that the show cause notice (SCN) lacked specific reasons for rejection, violating principles of natural justice. The court noted that the SCN and the impugned order did not provide any details or reasons for the retrospective cancellation. The court referred to Section 29(2) of the Act, stating that registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically, but only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. The court modified the impugned order, stating that the registration shall be treated as cancelled with effect from the date when the petitioner filed an application seeking cancellation. As the petitioner no longer sought to carry on business or maintain the registration, the petition was disposed of.
The Delhi High Court addressed the issue of the cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner with retrospective effect. The court found that the show cause notice (SCN) lacked specific reasons for rejection, violating principles of natural justice. The court noted that the SCN and the impugned order did not provide any details or reasons for the retrospective cancellation. The court referred to Section 29(2) of the Act, stating that registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically, but only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. The court modified the impugned order, stating that the registration shall be treated as cancelled with effect from the date when the petitioner filed an application seeking cancellation. As the petitioner no longer sought to carry on business or maintain the registration, the petition was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
