Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The High Court held that the respondent-authority had jurisdiction u/s 61 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to issue a second show-cause notice seeking further explanation regarding discrepancies pointed out after the petitioner's response to the first show-cause notice. The Court opined that since the petitioner had furnished an explanation to the first notice, no prejudice would be caused by responding to the second notice highlighting additional discrepancies. The petitioner was directed to explain the alleged discrepancies mentioned in the second show-cause notice dated 05.07.2024 for the authority to proceed in accordance with law u/s 61 of the JGST Act. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.
The High Court held that the respondent-authority had jurisdiction u/s 61 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to issue a second show-cause notice seeking further explanation regarding discrepancies pointed out after the petitioner's response to the first show-cause notice. The Court opined that since the petitioner had furnished an explanation to the first notice, no prejudice would be caused by responding to the second notice highlighting additional discrepancies. The petitioner was directed to explain the alleged discrepancies mentioned in the second show-cause notice dated 05.07.2024 for the authority to proceed in accordance with law u/s 61 of the JGST Act. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
