Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 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 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 
