Foreign portfolio investment liberalisation extends listed equity access to all individual persons resident outside India, subject to limit monitoring...
Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(2)(d) of the Assam and Central Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017, were challenged regarding the validity of punishing a purchasing dealer for the selling dealer's failure to deposit collected tax. The High Court held that the controversy is covered by the Delhi High Court's decision in On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. case, where it was ruled that default assessment orders against purchasing dealers invoking Section 9(2)(g) of the DVAT Act for the selling dealer's default were set aside. Consequently, the impugned show cause notices and consequential orders were set aside in the present case. However, the Department can act against non-bona fide purchase transactions in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of.
Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(2)(d) of the Assam and Central Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017, were challenged regarding the validity of punishing a purchasing dealer for the selling dealer's failure to deposit collected tax. The High Court held that the controversy is covered by the Delhi High Court's decision in On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. case, where it was ruled that default assessment orders against purchasing dealers invoking Section 9(2)(g) of the DVAT Act for the selling dealer's default were set aside. Consequently, the impugned show cause notices and consequential orders were set aside in the present case. However, the Department can act against non-bona fide purchase transactions in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
