Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1101 to 1120 of 96136 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 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.