Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
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 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
