Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The High Court held that the Additional Director of GST Intelligence was competent to issue the communication demanding payment, rejecting the petitioner's contention that only an Assistant Commissioner could issue such a notice. The court relied on a circular permitting Central Tax Officers of Audit Commissionerates and Directorate General of GST to issue show-cause notices. The impugned communication was not a show-cause notice but merely an intimation to pay up, failing which a show-cause notice u/s 74(1) would be issued, for which the Additional Director was competent. The court found no reason to interfere with the communication and dismissed the petition.
The High Court held that the Additional Director of GST Intelligence was competent to issue the communication demanding payment, rejecting the petitioner's contention that only an Assistant Commissioner could issue such a notice. The court relied on a circular permitting Central Tax Officers of Audit Commissionerates and Directorate General of GST to issue show-cause notices. The impugned communication was not a show-cause notice but merely an intimation to pay up, failing which a show-cause notice u/s 74(1) would be issued, for which the Additional Director was competent. The court found no reason to interfere with the communication and dismissed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
