Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
The High Court considered the validity of a garnishee order due to a mismatch between the supplier's GSTR 1 statement and the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns. The court found that the petitioner was not given a chance to be heard before the order was issued. As the tax demand was already met from the petitioner's bank account, the revenue interest was secured. The court held that the petitioner should be allowed to contest the tax demand and quashed the impugned order dated 15.09.2023. The matter was remanded for reconsideration, and the petition was disposed of by way of remand.
The High Court considered the validity of a garnishee order due to a mismatch between the supplier's GSTR 1 statement and the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns. The court found that the petitioner was not given a chance to be heard before the order was issued. As the tax demand was already met from the petitioner's bank account, the revenue interest was secured. The court held that the petitioner should be allowed to contest the tax demand and quashed the impugned order dated 15.09.2023. The matter was remanded for reconsideration, and the petition was disposed of by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
