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...
The High Court considered the liability of the petitioner u/s 73 (9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax / Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It was found that the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The court held that the order for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 should be set aside, and the petitioner must be given a hearing as per Section 75 (4) of the KGST Act. The matter is remitted to respondent No. 1 for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The High Court considered the liability of the petitioner u/s 73 (9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax / Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It was found that the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The court held that the order for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 should be set aside, and the petitioner must be given a hearing as per Section 75 (4) of the KGST Act. The matter is remitted to respondent No. 1 for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
