Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Petitioner challenged assessment orders citing lack of jurisdiction, as entire duty liability was discharged from ITC availed at import. Court rejected jurisdiction challenge based on precedent, holding respondent competent to pass order under circular and GST Act provisions. However, petitioner failed to provide proper reply with tabulations and documents when show cause notice issued. Court set aside impugned order, remitting case for fresh order on merits, subject to petitioner depositing 10% of balance amount excluding defect relating to 100% ITC adjustment, and 1% of tax liability u/s 86(b) of GST Rules within 30 days. Petition allowed.
Petitioner challenged assessment orders citing lack of jurisdiction, as entire duty liability was discharged from ITC availed at import. Court rejected jurisdiction challenge based on precedent, holding respondent competent to pass order under circular and GST Act provisions. However, petitioner failed to provide proper reply with tabulations and documents when show cause notice issued. Court set aside impugned order, remitting case for fresh order on merits, subject to petitioner depositing 10% of balance amount excluding defect relating to 100% ITC adjustment, and 1% of tax liability u/s 86(b) of GST Rules within 30 days. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.