Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
