Minimum alternate tax exclusions for pre-amendment banking companies and expatriate Indian branch salaries remain outside head office expenditure limi...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1201 to 1220 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" ?
The High Court dismissed the petition seeking a declaration that the blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) was unlawful due to lack of jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice. The court held that u/r 86A(1) of the OGST Rules, 2017, the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, being higher in rank than an Assistant Commissioner, had jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders relating to State GST. The court clarified that the circular issued by the Government of India on 02.11.2021 is applicable only to Central GST and not State GST unless adopted by the State Government through a declaration, which was not done in this case. Consequently, the claim of lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice was rejected, and the petition was disposed of.
The High Court dismissed the petition seeking a declaration that the blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) was unlawful due to lack of jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice. The court held that u/r 86A(1) of the OGST Rules, 2017, the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, being higher in rank than an Assistant Commissioner, had jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders relating to State GST. The court clarified that the circular issued by the Government of India on 02.11.2021 is applicable only to Central GST and not State GST unless adopted by the State Government through a declaration, which was not done in this case. Consequently, the claim of lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice was rejected, and the petition was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.