Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The High Court examined the validity of Notification No. 56/2023-CT dated 28.12.2023, which extended the time limit for passing orders u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act). The key issues were the absence of a recommendation from the GST Council and the absence of a corresponding state government notification parallel to the Central Government's notification. The Court held that exercising powers u/s 168A of the CGST Act to extend time limits requires a recommendation from the GST Council and the existence of force majeure circumstances, as defined in the Explanation to Section 168A. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in V.M. Kurian Vs. State of Kerala, the Court emphasized that the word "recommendation" implies a statement expressing commendation, and its meaning must be understood in the context of the relevant provisions and objects. The Court observed that the CGST Act and State GST Acts do not define "recommendation" but noted the constitutional provisions promoting fiscal and cooperative federalism. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Notification No. 56/2023-CT is ultra vires the CGST Act and legally unsustainable, setting it aside. The Orders-in-Original passed u/s 73(9) of the CGST Act and State GST Act beyond the prescribed time limit u/s 73(10.
The High Court examined the validity of Notification No. 56/2023-CT dated 28.12.2023, which extended the time limit for passing orders u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act). The key issues were the absence of a recommendation from the GST Council and the absence of a corresponding state government notification parallel to the Central Government's notification. The Court held that exercising powers u/s 168A of the CGST Act to extend time limits requires a recommendation from the GST Council and the existence of force majeure circumstances, as defined in the Explanation to Section 168A. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in V.M. Kurian Vs. State of Kerala, the Court emphasized that the word "recommendation" implies a statement expressing commendation, and its meaning must be understood in the context of the relevant provisions and objects. The Court observed that the CGST Act and State GST Acts do not define "recommendation" but noted the constitutional provisions promoting fiscal and cooperative federalism. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Notification No. 56/2023-CT is ultra vires the CGST Act and legally unsustainable, setting it aside. The Orders-in-Original passed u/s 73(9) of the CGST Act and State GST Act beyond the prescribed time limit u/s 73(10.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
