Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96047 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 quashed the summary order issued under the GST Act without a detailed order, finding it a violation of principles of natural justice. The court observed that the summary order merely mentioned the order number, tax period, financial year, issues involved, description of goods, and demand details, but lacked a detailed order supporting it. Consequently, the court set aside the summary order, the consequent recovery action, and the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts. The respondents were directed to pass an appropriate order for lifting the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts forthwith.
The High Court quashed the summary order issued under the GST Act without a detailed order, finding it a violation of principles of natural justice. The court observed that the summary order merely mentioned the order number, tax period, financial year, issues involved, description of goods, and demand details, but lacked a detailed order supporting it. Consequently, the court set aside the summary order, the consequent recovery action, and the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts. The respondents were directed to pass an appropriate order for lifting the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts forthwith.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.