Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
