Transfer pricing comparability requires functional alignment, reliable financial data, and careful review of working capital and receivables adjustmen...
Transfer pricing rules require benchmarking corporate guarantees and associated-enterprise advances, while invalid domestic-transaction adjustments ca...
Prospective sugar export prohibition required registered letters of credit; private contracts and export quotas created no enforceable continuation ri...
Retroactive interim-moratorium exclusion permits protective asset disclosure and preservation measures against personal guarantors pending arbitration...
Page of 4778
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95557 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 4778
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
