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...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the order determining the amount of tax u/s 74 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2016. The court observed that a coordinate bench had previously directed the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal within the limitation period from the date of the order. However, the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the prescribed time limit and instead filed the present writ petition after a considerable delay. The High Court held that since the coordinate bench had granted a specific relief, which the petitioner chose not to avail, the present writ petition cannot be entertained and was consequently dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the order determining the amount of tax u/s 74 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2016. The court observed that a coordinate bench had previously directed the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal within the limitation period from the date of the order. However, the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the prescribed time limit and instead filed the present writ petition after a considerable delay. The High Court held that since the coordinate bench had granted a specific relief, which the petitioner chose not to avail, the present writ petition cannot be entertained and was consequently dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
