Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
