Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The High Court held that the respondents' conclusion of the petitioner's principal place of business being non-existent at the time of physical verification was ex facie erroneous. The conclusion was based solely on purported enquiries from nearby shop owners, without mentioning their names or details in the Field Report. Cancelling a taxpayer's registration solely on the basis of general queries from random persons, without any record, is difficult to countenance. The petitioner's premises were found to exist, with a signboard bearing the GSTIN, and a photograph in the Field Report established possession at the material time. The petitioner contended that the shop was closed and reopened a few days before inspection due to suspension of GST registration. The Court directed the petitioner to file a response to the impugned Show Cause Notice with documents establishing the existence of the principal place of business since registration. The proper officer shall consider the reply and take an informed decision.
The High Court held that the respondents' conclusion of the petitioner's principal place of business being non-existent at the time of physical verification was ex facie erroneous. The conclusion was based solely on purported enquiries from nearby shop owners, without mentioning their names or details in the Field Report. Cancelling a taxpayer's registration solely on the basis of general queries from random persons, without any record, is difficult to countenance. The petitioner's premises were found to exist, with a signboard bearing the GSTIN, and a photograph in the Field Report established possession at the material time. The petitioner contended that the shop was closed and reopened a few days before inspection due to suspension of GST registration. The Court directed the petitioner to file a response to the impugned Show Cause Notice with documents establishing the existence of the principal place of business since registration. The proper officer shall consider the reply and take an informed decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
