Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1101 to 1120 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
