Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
Scientific research institution approval is conditional on SIRO recognition, annual donation reporting, donor certification, and prescribed compliance...
Page of 4878
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97553 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court prima facie found the notification No. 56/2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to be inconsistent with Section 168(A) of the Central GST Act, 2017. Consequently, any actions based on the said notification would fail. While acknowledging the petitioner's entitlement to reliefs proposed in the Financial Bill 2024, the Court deemed it necessary to examine the applicability of force majeure concerning the notification, considering the Minutes of the 49th GST Council Meeting. However, the respondent authorities were granted an opportunity to present their stance and materials justifying the force majeure claim. Interim protection was granted to the petitioner, prohibiting coercive action based on the impugned assessment order dated 18.04.2024 until the next hearing scheduled for 21.08.2024, with the respondents directed to file affidavits by 19.08.2024.
The High Court prima facie found the notification No. 56/2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to be inconsistent with Section 168(A) of the Central GST Act, 2017. Consequently, any actions based on the said notification would fail. While acknowledging the petitioner's entitlement to reliefs proposed in the Financial Bill 2024, the Court deemed it necessary to examine the applicability of force majeure concerning the notification, considering the Minutes of the 49th GST Council Meeting. However, the respondent authorities were granted an opportunity to present their stance and materials justifying the force majeure claim. Interim protection was granted to the petitioner, prohibiting coercive action based on the impugned assessment order dated 18.04.2024 until the next hearing scheduled for 21.08.2024, with the respondents directed to file affidavits by 19.08.2024.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.