Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 95636 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Telangana High Court addressed a case involving the recovery...
Refund: HC noted the argument that once an order is passed u/s 54, it can only be annulled in appeal or revision. No coercive action till next hearing.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The Telangana High Court addressed a case involving the recovery of a refund due to a misclassification of the supply of a solar power generating system. The petitioner argued that an order under u/s 54 of the CGST Act can only be annulled through an appeal u/s 107 or revision u/s 108. Citing a precedent, the court held that unless the Annexure-I certificate is cancelled following the procedure u/r 35E, invoking u/s 11A is impermissible. The court noted the submissions that the show cause notices as without jurisdiction and ordered no coercive action against the petitioner until the next hearing scheduled for 22.07.2024.
The Telangana High Court addressed a case involving the recovery of a refund due to a misclassification of the supply of a solar power generating system. The petitioner argued that an order under u/s 54 of the CGST Act can only be annulled through an appeal u/s 107 or revision u/s 108. Citing a precedent, the court held that unless the Annexure-I certificate is cancelled following the procedure u/r 35E, invoking u/s 11A is impermissible. The court noted the submissions that the show cause notices as without jurisdiction and ordered no coercive action against the petitioner until the next hearing scheduled for 22.07.2024.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
