Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Rule 117(4)(b)(iii) of the CGST Rules was challenged as ultra vires Section 140(3) of the CGST Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held that the petitioner has the right to avail transitional credit legally due, and the authorities should permit rectification of TRAN-1/TRAN-2 by making necessary software changes. The respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to file rectified TRAN-1 with correct details and TRAN-2 within eight weeks to avail transitional credit. The impugned show-cause notice was quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Rule 117(4)(b)(iii) of the CGST Rules was challenged as ultra vires Section 140(3) of the CGST Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court held that the petitioner has the right to avail transitional credit legally due, and the authorities should permit rectification of TRAN-1/TRAN-2 by making necessary software changes. The respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to file rectified TRAN-1 with correct details and TRAN-2 within eight weeks to avail transitional credit. The impugned show-cause notice was quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.