Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
