Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
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...
The High Court quashed the order invoking Rule 86A for blocking the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) of the petitioner under the CGST/SGST Rules, 2017. The impugned order lacked independent or cogent reasons and relied on reports of enforcement authorities, which is impermissible. Crucially, no pre-decisional hearing was granted, violating principles of natural justice. The order erroneously described the supplier as non-existent or not conducting business, despite the supplier obtaining registration and the transaction occurring before cancellation of registration. The court held that the order failed to provide valid reasons for blocking the ECL, thereby warranting its quashing.
The High Court quashed the order invoking Rule 86A for blocking the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) of the petitioner under the CGST/SGST Rules, 2017. The impugned order lacked independent or cogent reasons and relied on reports of enforcement authorities, which is impermissible. Crucially, no pre-decisional hearing was granted, violating principles of natural justice. The order erroneously described the supplier as non-existent or not conducting business, despite the supplier obtaining registration and the transaction occurring before cancellation of registration. The court held that the order failed to provide valid reasons for blocking the ECL, thereby warranting its quashing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.