Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
