Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
501 to 520 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In light of the amended Rules 108 and 109 of the GST Rules effective from 26th December 2022, the High Court held that when an appealed order is issued or uploaded on the common portal and can be viewed by the appellate authority, submitting a certified copy of such uploaded order for authenticity becomes insignificant. Therefore, the appellate authority could not have rejected the appeal on the technical ground of non-supply of a certified copy, particularly when the statute does not mandate it. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28th February 2023 passed by the respondent rejecting the appeal was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority to pass a fresh de novo order on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
In light of the amended Rules 108 and 109 of the GST Rules effective from 26th December 2022, the High Court held that when an appealed order is issued or uploaded on the common portal and can be viewed by the appellate authority, submitting a certified copy of such uploaded order for authenticity becomes insignificant. Therefore, the appellate authority could not have rejected the appeal on the technical ground of non-supply of a certified copy, particularly when the statute does not mandate it. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28th February 2023 passed by the respondent rejecting the appeal was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority to pass a fresh de novo order on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.