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...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The petitioner challenged the impugned order and recovery notice issued by the respondent, claiming that the entire tax liability had been paid by reversing the wrongly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC). The court held that the petitioner had already paid the entire tax demand and was only seeking an opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice and personal hearing regarding the imposition of interest and penalty, which the petitioner claimed not to be liable for. Additionally, as per the decision taken in the 53rd GST Council Meeting, the time was extended until March 31, 2025. By applying the proposed amendment to Section 128(A) of the Act, the petitioner was not liable to pay any amount since sufficient ITC was available. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration regarding the assessment years 2017-2018. Consequently, the final notice dated 05.05.2023 was also set aside. The petition was disposed of by way of remand.
The petitioner challenged the impugned order and recovery notice issued by the respondent, claiming that the entire tax liability had been paid by reversing the wrongly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC). The court held that the petitioner had already paid the entire tax demand and was only seeking an opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice and personal hearing regarding the imposition of interest and penalty, which the petitioner claimed not to be liable for. Additionally, as per the decision taken in the 53rd GST Council Meeting, the time was extended until March 31, 2025. By applying the proposed amendment to Section 128(A) of the Act, the petitioner was not liable to pay any amount since sufficient ITC was available. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration regarding the assessment years 2017-2018. Consequently, the final notice dated 05.05.2023 was also set aside. The petition was disposed of by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
