Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The High Court considered the issuance of notice u/s 74(1), 122(2), and 125 of the CGST Act, 2017 u/s Rule 142(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 for unpaid tax on Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on cotton purchase from agriculturist. The petitioner challenged jurisdiction but was allowed to make submissions on merits. The court found petitioner liable for GST on RCM basis as per Section 9(3) of the CGST Act. Revenue neutrality argument rejected due to non-100% export. Penalty u/s 122(2) upheld as petitioner failed to pay GST on RCM basis, deliberately violating Notification No. 43 of 2017. Court upheld the order for payment of Rs. 3,73,95,300/- with equal penalty. Petition dismissed.
The High Court considered the issuance of notice u/s 74(1), 122(2), and 125 of the CGST Act, 2017 u/s Rule 142(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 for unpaid tax on Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on cotton purchase from agriculturist. The petitioner challenged jurisdiction but was allowed to make submissions on merits. The court found petitioner liable for GST on RCM basis as per Section 9(3) of the CGST Act. Revenue neutrality argument rejected due to non-100% export. Penalty u/s 122(2) upheld as petitioner failed to pay GST on RCM basis, deliberately violating Notification No. 43 of 2017. Court upheld the order for payment of Rs. 3,73,95,300/- with equal penalty. Petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
