Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 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.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
