Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Petitioner challenged impugned order regarding GST discrepancies, failing to avail opportunity of personal hearing. Court held that notice was issued by respondent based on difference between turnover reported in Form 26AS and Form GSTR 3B. Petitioner replied that difference occurred as Form 26AS includes turnover from April 2017 to June 2017, prior to GST regime, while GSTR3B excluded that period. However, respondent did not consider this aspect while passing impugned order. Court believes granting another opportunity would allow petitioner to establish case before authorities. Impugned order dated 12.12.2023 set aside, matter remanded to respondent for fresh consideration on condition that petitioner pays 10% of demand amount within four weeks from 12.08.2024. Setting aside of impugned order effective from date of payment. Petition disposed by way of remand.
Petitioner challenged impugned order regarding GST discrepancies, failing to avail opportunity of personal hearing. Court held that notice was issued by respondent based on difference between turnover reported in Form 26AS and Form GSTR 3B. Petitioner replied that difference occurred as Form 26AS includes turnover from April 2017 to June 2017, prior to GST regime, while GSTR3B excluded that period. However, respondent did not consider this aspect while passing impugned order. Court believes granting another opportunity would allow petitioner to establish case before authorities. Impugned order dated 12.12.2023 set aside, matter remanded to respondent for fresh consideration on condition that petitioner pays 10% of demand amount within four weeks from 12.08.2024. Setting aside of impugned order effective from date of payment. Petition disposed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
