Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
The court dealt with the power to cancel GST registration retrospectively u/s 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It held that while the provision enables retrospective cancellation, the mere existence of such power does not justify its invocation. The order u/s 29(2) must reflect reasons for cancelling registration retrospectively, considering the deleterious consequences. The power cannot be exercised robotically or routinely unless circumstances warrant. The impugned order lacked reasoning for retroactive cancellation, violating the statutory scheme. Relying on Ramesh Chander's case, the court emphasized that retrospective cancellation should consider denying input tax credit to customers, and such consequences must be intended and warranted. Failing to provide even rudimentary reasons, the impugned order was quashed, and the petition was allowed.
The court dealt with the power to cancel GST registration retrospectively u/s 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It held that while the provision enables retrospective cancellation, the mere existence of such power does not justify its invocation. The order u/s 29(2) must reflect reasons for cancelling registration retrospectively, considering the deleterious consequences. The power cannot be exercised robotically or routinely unless circumstances warrant. The impugned order lacked reasoning for retroactive cancellation, violating the statutory scheme. Relying on Ramesh Chander's case, the court emphasized that retrospective cancellation should consider denying input tax credit to customers, and such consequences must be intended and warranted. Failing to provide even rudimentary reasons, the impugned order was quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
