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 dealt with the maintainability of a petition concerning the non-constitution of an Appellate Tribunal and the jurisdiction and authority of the Assistant Commissioner as a "proper officer" and "adjudicating authority" under the Uttarakhand Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The court held that since the Assistant Commissioner was assigned functions as a proper officer u/s 5(1) and 5(3) read with Section 2(91) of the Act, and as an adjudicating authority u/s 2(4) (excluding the Commissioner), the Assistant Commissioner had the authority to pass an order for cancellation of GST registration. Consequently, an appeal would lie before the Commissioner against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, being a proper officer and adjudicating authority under the Act. The court allowed the review application in part, modifying its earlier judgment to hold that an appeal lies before the Commissioner against orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
The High Court dealt with the maintainability of a petition concerning the non-constitution of an Appellate Tribunal and the jurisdiction and authority of the Assistant Commissioner as a "proper officer" and "adjudicating authority" under the Uttarakhand Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The court held that since the Assistant Commissioner was assigned functions as a proper officer u/s 5(1) and 5(3) read with Section 2(91) of the Act, and as an adjudicating authority u/s 2(4) (excluding the Commissioner), the Assistant Commissioner had the authority to pass an order for cancellation of GST registration. Consequently, an appeal would lie before the Commissioner against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, being a proper officer and adjudicating authority under the Act. The court allowed the review application in part, modifying its earlier judgment to hold that an appeal lies before the Commissioner against orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
