Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1081 to 1100 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
This is a case involving the cancellation of a petitioner's GST registration by the respondent authorities. The court held that Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 86B of the GST Rules, which were relied upon for cancellation, lack statutory backing under the GST Act and are ultra vires. The cancellation of registration was deemed a disproportionate punishment, and the court found it arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court set aside the impugned order canceling the petitioner's GST registration and directed the respondents to restore the registration forthwith. The court criticized the respondents for canceling the registration based on a prima facie investigation without completing the investigation. Overall, the court allowed the writ petition and provided relief to the petitioner against the cancellation of GST registration.
This is a case involving the cancellation of a petitioner's GST registration by the respondent authorities. The court held that Section 16(2)(c) and Rule 86B of the GST Rules, which were relied upon for cancellation, lack statutory backing under the GST Act and are ultra vires. The cancellation of registration was deemed a disproportionate punishment, and the court found it arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court set aside the impugned order canceling the petitioner's GST registration and directed the respondents to restore the registration forthwith. The court criticized the respondents for canceling the registration based on a prima facie investigation without completing the investigation. Overall, the court allowed the writ petition and provided relief to the petitioner against the cancellation of GST registration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
